Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDUSTRY

British Leyland Motor Corporation

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what representations he has received from British Leyland or the National Enterprise Board in connection with the investment of further public funds in British Leyland.

3. Mr. Kenneth Clarke: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next intends to visit officially any British Leyland factory.

The Secretary of Statefor Industry (Mr. Eric G. Varley): I have no further plans at present to visit any British Leyland factory. I have nothing further to add to the statement I made on 2nd March.

Mr. Renton: In the light of the comments made this morning by Mr. Roy Fraser that the attitude of the toolmakers has hardened, does the Secretary of State feel that the situation has worsened since he last spoke to the House? Is he, in conjunction with the National Enterprise Board, laying any contingency plans to keep the specialist car division, Jaguar and Rover, afloat even if the volume car production has to be irrevocably closed?

Mr. Varley: The NEB is considering the matter and is looking at the situation continually. I have not heard Mr. Fraser's statement, but I can only hope that he and his colleagues will quickly return to work in accordance with the advice given to them over the weekend by Mr. Hugh Scanlon on behalf of the

Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions.

Mr. Clarke: Has the Secretary of State any estimate of how much longer British Leyland can survive the present dispute before it begins to trade while insolvent? Is he satisfied that the AUEW appreciates the urgency of the situation given that it has taken an extremely long time even to meet its members on strike? Does he think that he can offer any encouragement to the toolmakers to return to work by announcing that no future stage of Government pay policy will be based on the principle of giving precisely the same rise to everyone regardless of skills and responsibilities?

Mr. Varley:: There is no question of British Leyland trading illegally. It is clear that the financial position of British Leyland is deteriorating as a result of the dispute, and I repeat that I hope it ends as soon as possible. It is not for me to pronounce about future incomes policy. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, from this Dispatch Box last week, said that it was the Government's intention that phase 3—if it could be negotiated—would be more flexible. I think that that has been made plain to the toolmakers at British Leyland, and it has been fully acknowledged by the AUEW that we are doing everything in our power to get the chaps back to work.

Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend place in the Library the letter he received last week from the NEB? Quite clearly, after the debate last week the comments of Mr. Urwin cast great doubts on the accuracy of the information given to the House by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Varley: The letter I received from the NEB is confidential concerning certain commercial information. It is not in the best interests of British Leyland to lay it before the House. I can tell my hon. Friend that the objective set out in my speech on 2nd March was agreed with the NEB. My understanding was that the main parts of my speech had been agreed unanimously by the NEB, including Mr. Urwin.

Mr. Eyre: Is the Secretary of State aware that suppliers of British Leyland are beginning to lay men off and that unless urgent action is taken unemployment will snowball in the Midlands?

Mr. Varley: The position at British Leyland is clearly tragic. For the past 18 months or more I have been prepared to back British Leyland and to persuade this House, as best as I was able, to support its long-term future. The £246 million to acquire 95 per cent. of British Leyland for the State, the first tranche of £100 million last August and the Mini replacement programme which I persuaded my colleagues in the Government should go ahead are all being placed in jeopardy.

Moderna (Witney) Ltd., Mytholmroyd

Mr. Madden: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he has received an application from Sona Consultants Ltd. for financial assistance for a manufacturing project at Moderna, Mytholmroyd, West Yorkshire.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Bob Cryer): Yes, Sir. I am pleased to inform my hon. Friend that an application has been submitted to my regional office in Leeds this morning. This application does not, however, contain all the detailed forward trading forecasts which the Department will require to process it. The company has told the Department that it expects to be able to provide the additional information in about three weeks.

Mr. Madden: In view of the most unfortunate circumstances surrounding this takeover, will my hon. Friend give an assurance that the application will be considered by his Department as a matter of urgency? Secondly, can he say how many jobs will be provided under this proposal and by when? If this proposal is supported, will he also impose a condition to maintain production and employment at this factory? Does he not also agree that these circumstances highlight the need for a revival of Labour's proposals to introduce official trustees in situations of this kind?

Mr. Speaker: Will the Minister bear in mind that if he answers two out of four questions the House will be satisfied?

Mr. Cryer: I shall be as helpful as I can, Mr. Speaker. The Department will consider as speedily as it can what my hon. Friend has said, but it is a complicated application and it is for a considerable sum. Therefore, we shall

need to examine the viability and funding completely. The projected employment is 150 persons by 1980, and the total project cost, including working capital, will be just over £4 million. The answer to my hon. Friend's last point about official trustees is that the powers were envisaged in Labour's programme for 1973. We shall have a further look at that.

Manufacturing (Financial Assistance)

Mr. Rooker: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his estimate of the total amount of public funds contributed to manufacturing industry for the latest convenient period.

The Under-Secretary of State for Industry (Mr. Les Huckfield): Records of expenditure are not, by and large, maintained so as to distinguish manufacturing industry from other industrial activity, but assistance to manufacturing industry during the period 1974–75 to 1976–77 has been about £6,350 million at 1976 survey prices. This figure does not include support for nationalised industries, industrial training, Redundancy Fund payments or labour market services, which together account for a further £2,582 million at 1976 survey prices.
If my hon. Friend has any particular aspect in mind, I shall be pleased to hear from him.

Mr. Rooker: The aspect that I have in mind will be well known to my hon. Friend. Does not this massive figure of public money contributed to private industry make all the more urgent the need for planning agreements within industry? This is a tragedy which my hon. Friend has constantly failed to answer.

Mr. Huckfield: On the contrary, I have tried to answer my hon. Friend on the matter of planning agreements when his Question has been reached, which has not always happened. I hope he will have taken careful note that there is a Question on this subject later on the Order Paper.

Mr. Hal Miller: Does the Minister agree that it is not only a question of the amount of funds that have been put into industry but rather a question of the use that is made of them? What is his Department doing to make certain


that output and productivity in our industry are increased?

Mr. Huckfield: That is the whole purpose of our industrial strategy and the National Economic Development Office and the sector working parties. When my hon. Friend considers applications for assistance under the various selective schemes, that is obviously the kind of matter that he always has uppermost in his mind.

Aircraft and Shipbuilding

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what companies in the aircraft and shipbuilding and repairing sectors he expects to be excluded from the provisions of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Act following the Examiners' decision of 17th February.

Mr. Adley: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what is his policy towards the nationalisation of the aircraft and shipbuilding industries, in the light of the decision by the Examiners that the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill is hybrid; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Varley: I have nothing to add to the statement I made on 2nd March.

Mr. Dykes: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain clearly why the list of companies to be cut out, the ship repair companies, does not include the company whose ship repair division accounts for 15 per cent. of the total United Kingdom capacity—Vosper Thornycroft?

Mr. Varley: Our agreement with the Opposition, through the usual channels, was that the Bill should proceed to Royal Assent in its present form apart from the deletion of the 12 listed ship repairing companies. Vosper Thornycroft's ship repairing activity, as it stressed in its own publicity material, is closely integrated with its shipbuilding activity. It is a division of the listed shipbuilding company and not a separate company.

Mr. Adley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I visited Vosper Thornycroft ship repairers on Friday and that in the light of the new circumstances the men there are confused and angry with both the company and the Government at their possible exclusion from the list? Does

not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the incorporation of the ship repairing activities at Vosper's in a massive nationalised shipbuilding company is wholly illogical? Will he consider the proposition not in a doctrinal way but in the best interests of the men who work there and of the industry, bearing in mind that fragmenting off one company seems wholly illogical?

Mr. Varley: I was specific when I made my statement on the Bill on 2nd March. The agreement that we have reached, which I hope can now proceed, to get the Bill to the statute book as quickly as possible excludes only the 12 listed ship repairing companies. In those circumstances, it would be impractical and a denial of that arrangement if we excluded Vosper Thornycroft's ship repairing activities.

Civil Aircraft Projects

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Industry which civil aircraft projects, including aeroengines, are receiving financial assistance; and what is the amount of assistance project by project.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Gerald Kaufman): Total financial assistance given up to 31 March 1976 on projects currently receiving support was £7·1 million on the HS146; £522 million on the RB211; £471 million on Concorde; £245 million on the Olympus engine, and £62 million on capital assistance agreements and on work in Government establishments associated with Concorde. This expenditure was offset by receipts of £297·5 million on the RB211 and £84 million on the Concorde project as a whole.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: While I am grateful to the Minister for giving those details, can he say how seriously the Government are pursuing the HS146 project and whether they really see it becoming a civil airliner? If not, what other projects with Europe or our American colleagues have they in mind?

Mr. Kaufman: Our seriousness about the HS146 is emphasised by the fact that we rescued that project after Hawker Siddeley had decided to abandon it unless the Government funded it 100 per


cent. The latest proposals are being examined carefully. We shall make an announcement as soon as possible, but it will be for British Aerospace to make its recommendations on whether it wishes to go ahead with the HS146. We are pursuing all other possibilities for collaborative arrangements. I have had talks with Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Lockheed and our French, German and Dutch partners. Every possibility that is available will be pursued to secure projects which will bring jobs to British workers.

Mr. Pattie: Does the Minister agree that it is critically important for both the civil and military divisions of the British aerospace industry to maintain the highest level of design capability in this country? In this regard, is he satisfied that we shall maintain our design capability if the Government proceed with the purchase of the American airborne early-warning system?

Mr. Kaufman: Questions about the purchase of the American early-warning system are not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. However, I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the maintenance of the design capability is absolutely essential for the British aircraft industry that we are determined to retain and enhance.

Derelict Land Clearance

Mr. Ronald Atkins: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will outline the criteria for specification of land as a derelict land clearance area; how much land has been so designated in Lancashire; and what is the amount of grant paid in this respect in the acquisition and improvement of derelict land for industrial development.

Mr. Cryer: As Lancashire is an intermediate area, it qualifies for 100 per cent. reclamation grants without designation as a derelict land clearance area. During the current financial year, 28 schemes in Lancashire have so far been approved for grant at an estimated cost of £446,000. In two of these schemes the land is intended for industrial use.

Mr. Atkins: Would not an acceleration of the improvement reduce the high unemployment of the area and use other unused resources at relatively low cost?

Is there not a need to conserve land which is being used up for commerce and manufacturing at a rate of about 50,000 acres a year?

Mr. Cryer: One of the general constraints on such expenditure is always the limitation of public funds, which the Government must bear in mind. But I take note of the points my hon. Friend has made, and he can rest assured that proper care is being given to the area of Lancashire that he represents.

Power Plant Industry

Mr. Mike Thomas: asked the Secretary of State for Industry if he will make a statement on the outcome of his consultations on the CPRS Report on the electrical plant industry.

Mr. Varley: The consultations are not yet concluded.

Mr. Thomas: When will the consultations be concluded? When will the announcement be made? Can my right hon. Friend assure us that discussions about mergers will not delay a decision on Drax B?

Mr. Varley: The discussions are being pressed ahead as quickly as possible. I agree with my hon. Friend that the matter is urgent. I have had meetings with the companies concerned, the TUC Fuel and Power Committee and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, the unions most directly involved in representing the men who work in the industry. The consultations will be pressed ahead as quickly as possible, but I think that it will be some little time before I can make a definitive statement to the House. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that we want agreement in principle for a restructured heavy electrical plant industry and that we see Drax B as a first component in a minimum ordering programme for the CEGB.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Will the Secretary of State remind his hon. Friend that the CPRS Report stated that the Drax B decision, taken in isolation from all others, would only postpone redundancies in Newcastle and elsewhere for about two years? Will he assure the House that no decision will be taken to oblige the Central Electricity Generating Board to order power plants for which there is no


apparent need if that will have the effect of putting up industrial costs for employers in every other industry throughout the country?

Mr. Varley: What is at stake is whether we should preserve the heavy electrical plant industry. It is clear that if we were not to have a minimum ordering programme, of which Drax B is an essential part, we should probably finish up with no heavy electrical plant industry. The discussions with the companies concerned are going ahead as quickly as possible. I hope shortly to be able to make a statement about the outcome.

Mr. Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he last used the phrase "as quickly as possible" at the end of February? The end of February has passed without its coming about. Is he also aware that my constituents will welcome what he said about Drax B, but that the redundancies in C. A. Parsons' plant in my constituency are now imminent and that we must have an announcement from him soon?

Mr. Varley: I can only re-emphasise that I understand the urgency of the situation, but we must get some restructuring of the industries concerned. That is our policy, which is in line with the CPRS Report. I hope that further progress can be made in the days and weeks ahead. It is our view, too, that the National Enterprise Board should be involved in the discussions. I understand that the companies have already had discussions with that body.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the Secretary of State, in considering this very difficult matter which is on his plate, bear in mind that any money to provide a power station ahead of requirement must come from somewhere and that as many jobs may be destroyed and as much industrial damage done elsewhere in finding the money as in the solution which some people are urging on him?

Mr. Varley: I do not see the situation quite in those terms. It is clear that the CEGB will have to order power stations, as will the two Scottish boards, in the 1980s. We are talking about having a minimum ordering programme and preserving an industry which we certainly hope will have an export potential. It is clear that if we let our industry go we

shall be permanent prisoners of overseas suppliers. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would like to see that situation.

Oral Answers to Questions — Scottish Council

(Development and Industry)

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he next proposes to meet the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) in Edinburgh.

Mr. Cryer: I have no plans at present to meet the Scottish' Council, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is in close touch with the Council.

Mr. Crawford: Will the Under-Secretary congratulate the Scottish Council Research Institute on the excellent work that it has done on the input-output study of the Scottish economy which shows that Scotland is in equilibrium on the balance of payments? Given that there are no balance of payments constrictions on the Scottish economy, will he ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reflate the Scottish economy immediately and to stop any further public expenditure cuts in Scotland?

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman is following his usual path of separation. The Labour Government do not feel that that path would be beneficial to the working people of Scotland. The working men and women of Scotland face much the same problems as the working men and women of England and Wales. Therefore, it seems to me that the hon. Member's question is distinctly frivolous and hardly relevant to the situation confronting this country.

Mr. Canavan: Is my hon. Friend aware of the strong feelings of the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) about the need to decentralise industry and, therefore, to disperse jobs to places like Scotland? Will he arrange for an explanation to be given to the House as to why the will of the Government and Parliament is being deliberately flouted by the British National Oil Corporation, which has so far provided only 17 jobs in its so-called headquarters in Glasgow? Is not that deliberately flouting Parliament's decision to locate the headquarters in Scotland? Will he also remind the hon.


Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) and his SNP colleagues that they voted against the Bill which set up the British National Oil Corporation?

Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks. I recognise his considerable ingenuity in putting a question to the Department of Industry which is not its responsibility. I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: If there is any kind of equilibrium in the Scottish balance of payments—the facts must be rather dubious—will the hon. Gentleman point out to the Scottish Council that it is overwhelmingly dependent on the British market for Scottish industry? Will he make sure that the Council fully understands that there must be no political or economic impediment in the way of a continuing British market?

Mr. Cryer: I accept some of the hon. Gentleman's points. We are concerned to see that the invidious propaganda of the Scottish National Party does not wreathe a mystique in Scotland which is totally divorced from the reality of the economic situation facing us.

Capital Returns

Mr. MacGregor: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how the current average rate of return on capital in British industry compares with the rate of return 15 years ago.

The Minister of State, Department of Industry (Mr. Alan Williams): Measured at replacement cost, about one-third of what it was in 1961.

Mr. MacGregor: Does the Minister agree that the serious trend shown by that answer goes a long way to explaining the comparatively low level of new investment in British industry today which this year's slightly better prospects do little to alleviate since they started from a very low base last year? What steps is the Department currently taking to impress on other Ministers, including the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection in his consideration of the next stage of prices policy, the overwhelming need to improve this rate of return?

Mr. Williams: The best-kept secret from the Opposition seems to be that the world has gone through an unprecedented recession in the post-war period. Therefore, it is not surprising that our profit levels are exceptionally low, just as they probably are in other countries.
I can understand that the Opposition wish to wrap the Price Code firmly around their origination of the policy. I must point out that we have on successive occasions eased the application of the Price Code. The present discussions on it give rise to the further possibility of removing some of the rigidities while retaining some form of price control acceptable to everyone in the country. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's basic argument about the profitability of industry obviously being linked to investment. Nevertheless, I do not think that he can attribute that problem entirely to this Government. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that we have just gone through a major recession.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal to hon. Members to try to get back to the old custom of a supplementary question being one question. The answer will then follow.

Mr. Robert Hughes: In the discussions on the Price Code, will my right hon. Friend, instead of being too flexible, be a bit tougher on individual items, especially items in household budgets?

Mr. Williams: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection is carrying out the consultations. I am sure that, from his reading of the proposals put forward by the Government, he will see that an analysis in depth, where profits appear to be unduly high, will be possible under the new régime.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Is the Minister aware that merely to hold unemployment at its present level it is necessary for the private sector to create 13,000 new jobs a month? Is he further aware that the private sector is capable of doing that provided that there is a shift to profits and provided that the Government do not follow the job-destroying proposals of Mr. Jones?

Mr. Williams: And provided that inflation is overcome and the world returns


to a state of growth. I assume that, since the hon. Gentleman wants similar objectives to ourselves, he supports the policy that we are putting forward to achieve that situation.

Advance Factories

Mr. Sainsbury: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much advance factory space is currently under construction; and what is the total value of the contracts in progress.

Mr. Alan Williams: The area under construction in England is 1·5 million sq. ft. at a contracted cost of £13·2 million.

Mr. Sainsbury: Will the Minister tell us what benefit he sees in spending that amount of money and adding to the 50 million sq. ft. of vacant factory space in the 200 or so unoccupied advance factories which have already been completed?

Mr. Williams: I am sure that it will have been noted in the North of England that, in a speech last week from the Opposition Front Bench, the Conservative spokesman on Welsh affairs deplored the fact that new factories had been approved for the North of England. The hon. Gentleman asked about the value of such a policy. I should point out that 60,000 workers in England already work in Government-owned factories. I should also point out that, in the nine months between 1st April last year and the beginning of January this year, the rate of letting of advance factories was double what it was the year before and was double what it was in the last 12 months of the Conservative Government. Therefore, I think that our policy is thoroughly vindicated as an investment in the future.

Mr. Jopling: Does the Minister recall that in the last day or so he has written to me about the letting of an advance factory in my constituency? Is he aware of the immense benefit which this programme has in the upland, rural areas where there is depopulation and rural decay? In view of the high level of unemployment over which the Government have presided, will the Minister ensure that upland, rural areas will not lose out in this factory development in comparison with other parts of the country?

Mr. Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Member for his earlier remarks and for his vindication of my Department because we reply to letters as soon as possible. Of course I take his point, but his criticism about the Government presiding over the highest level of unemployment is unjustified. The Opposition must face up to the fact that we are experiencing the biggest world recession since the last war.

Planning Agreements

Mr. Litterick: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many planning agreements have now been concluded in the public and private sectors, respectively.

Mr. Kaufman: A statement will be laid before Parliament when a planning agreement has been made.

Mr. Litterick: Is my hon. Friend aware that the absence of any planning agreements in either the public or the private sector is an indication of the total failure of the voluntary principle? Is he aware that the failure to achieve planning agreements in the public sector is little short of incredible? Does he agree that the Government's industrial strategy can be seen to be without substance and effect as manifest by the level of investment and employment?

Mr. Kaufman: Although I generally agree with my hon. Friend, on this occasion I find it difficult to do so. We are proceeding with the planning agreement policy in both the public and private sectors. We hope to make some announcement shortly. The principle of voluntary planning agreements was set out in "Regeneration of British Industry" and in the Industry Bill. It was endorsed by my hon. Friend by his votes in the House for those policies.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When planning agreements are agreed and an announcement is made, will the Minister tell the House that the likes of the toolmakers at British Leyland will be involved in the discussions prior to the agreements being made? Does he agree that if the toolmakers, who are vital to the car industry, had been consulted a little more the Government would have achieved more flexibility in the prices and incomes policy, which would have meant


that the present chaos at British Leyland would not have been with us?

Mr. Kaufman: I am interested to hear that an hon. Member who voted for two compulsory incomes policies and has supported his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) should now be miraculously converted to a voluntary incomes policy from no incomes policy at all. It is easy for him to change his mind when in Opposition instead of following his Whips when in Government. The whole process of the planning agreement discussions involved workers through their trade union representatives. It is open to the toolmakers at Leyland to take part in the participation machinery at Leyland, just as it is possible for the workers at Chrysler to take part in planning agreement discussions there.

Mr. Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the planning agreement with Chrysler will be welcomed on this side of the House? Is he aware that considerable progress has been achieved already by Chrysler on the basis of the joint reconstruction programme that has been worked out between that company and the Government?

Mr. Kaufman: This is a matter about which we hear little from the Opposition because it is one of the many successes achieved by this Government. When we are able to make further announcements on these matters, Opposition hon. Members, whose negativism is becoming the symbol of their party's existence, will once again be shown to be frustrated.

Mr. Viggers: Because the Chrysler company in the United States has made profits and has taken the British Government for a £40 million ride, what do the Government think they can tell Chrysler about running a business?

Mr. Kaufman: I am interested to hear that the hon. Member's appreciation of United States capitalism is greater than for the success that he can attribute to British capitalism.

Consett and Stanley

Mr. David Watkins: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what expansion he expects to provide for male employment opportunities in Consett and

Stanley, County Durham, in the next financial year.

Mr. Cryer: Regional selective assistance offered under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972 to projects located in Consett and Stanley is expected to provide 240 male jobs in the year ending 31st March 1978. In addition, employment is also expected to arise from the payment of regional development grants and the provision of Government factories.

Mr. Watkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Is he aware that, apart from the constantly high level of unemployment in Consett and Stanley, there is also a continuing loss of jobs in the basic industries such as steel and coal mining on which the economy of the area is dependent? Is he aware that this continuing loss of jobs shows no sign of abating?

Mr. Cryer: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. The area to which he referred has special development area status—the highest level of assistance that is available. In Consett and Stanley there have been 19 offers of regional selective assistance amounting to over £600,000 in respect of projects that are expected to cost £11 million. The projects will involve 1,600 new or safeguarded jobs. In addition, there are two advance factories available in Consett. We try to provide every possible incentive to industry to go to areas such as this. It is a continuing problem, but my Department is using its best endeavours to bring some amelioration to the problem.

Leicester

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Industry whether he will pay an official visit to a factory in the city of Leicester.

Mr. Alan Williams: I have no plans to do so in the immediate future.

Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that if he goes to Leicester he will receive a warm welcome and will have the opportunity to congratulate the trade unions and management on their resilience and craftsmanship and their success in exports? Will he bear in mind the grave difficulties that exist in the traditional industries in Leicestershire, particularly in hosiery and footwear and even


more particularly in those that rely on the home market? Can the Minister do anything to help?

Mr. Williams: I share my hon. and learned Friend's congratulations for the way in which management and trade unions in the area have withstood the pressures of the recession. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will be glad to hear that the latest figures show that there has been an increase of about 300 in the number of vacancies in the area over the last year. Last year 35 industrial development certificates were approved, and another seven have already been approved this year. Between them about 2,000 jobs will be created. We have taken action to stop the dumping of low-priced foreign footwear. I am sure my hon. and learned Friend will be pleased that at present in the hosiery industry demand for labour, including machinists, exceeds supply.

Postal Sorting Offices

Mr. Benyon: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how many postal sorting offices in the United Kingdom have been equipped with modem sorting machinery.

Mr. Les Huckfield: As this is a matter falling within the Post Office's field of responsibility, the hon. Member should write to it on this subject.

Mr. Benyon: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he able to tell me why many of these very expensive machines which have been installed in post offices up and down the country are not being used? I understand that there is a very large installation in London which has been lying idle for many years.

Mr. Huckfield: I thought that that was precisely what I was saying. If the hon. Member has any specific instances, he should contact the Post Office.

Mr. loan Evans: In view of the anticipated profit that the Post Office expects to make during the next period, will my hon. Friend consider discussing with the Post Office the possibility of keeping down future increases in postal charges?

Mr. Huckfield: Much as I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity, that is a different question.

Mr. Speaker: Good.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is the Minister aware that such answers are not acceptable to the House of Commons? Is he aware that we simply cannot get answers to Questions about the Post Office from a Minister? It would be better to go back to the days of the Postmaster-General. Although it is true that it is necessary for the Post Office to make a profit, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is now grossly profiteering at the expense of the consumer, particularly on telephones?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said "Good" because I welcomed the fact that the Minister indicated that the supplementary question was not related to the original Question, and it really applies to what the hon. Gentleman was asking.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have found with both Questions for Written Answer and Questions for Oral Answer to the Department of Industry that it is almost impossible to get any answer to any Question on the economy of the Post Office. The people are concerned to know whether the Post Office is making—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will raise the matter at the end of Question Time.

Ferrous Foundry Scheme

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Industry how much money has now been given out in aid under the ferrous foundry scheme to date in each of the development areas.

Mr. Cryer: Up to the end of February the following amounts, to the nearest £1,000, had been offered to companies in development—including special development—areas:



£


Scotland
5,089,000


Northern Region
3,149,000


North-West Region
31,000


Wales
73,000


South-West Region
57,000


A total of £7¼ million has also been offered to companies in intermediate areas. Actual payments so far have been quite small since they are made only when expenditure has taken place.

Mr. Canavan: In view of the large number of foundry workers who are either unemployed or on short-time working in places such as Denny, Dunipace, Dennyloanhead and Bonnybridge and elsewhere in my constituency, and as this situation is likely to deteriorate with the withdrawal of regional employment premium and the cuts in public expenditure, which will cause the loss of local government contracts, will my hon. Friend consider extending the ferrous foundry scheme to give help to these workers, particularly those in smaller foundries?

Mr. Cryer: The scheme closed on 31st December. Certainly we think that it is a massive scheme of assistance. The fact that expenditure has started only in a very small sort of way and that there is considerable expenditure yet to come would, I should have thought, be an indication of considerable help to the foundry industry.
With regard to the ending of REP, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced, there has been a further expenditure of £80 million on forms of selective assistance. We hope that this selective assistance will make up for and be more effective than the general across-the-board allocation of REP. I recognise and acknowledge the great concern that my hon. Friend has shown, but the foundry scheme has been aimed selectively at improving the efficiency of the foundry industry.

Regional Policy

Mr. Anthony Grant: asked the Secretary of State for Industry when he proposes to hold a review of regional policy.

Mr. Alan Williams: The effectiveness of our regional policy is constantly monitored.

Mr. Grant: I entirely accept the concept of regional policy, but is the Minister aware that the present policy involving vast sums of money spread thinly over ever-widening areas is quite unrealistic at present? In view of the appalling unemployment and deterioration, particularly in the urban areas, is not a fresh and more concentrated approach now called for?

Mr. Williams: I think the hon. Gentleman will be fully aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is conducting a review of

the problems of the urban areas, and I am sure that we should await the outcome of that survey.

Mr. Grant: Is the right hon. Gentleman taking part in that?

Mr. Williams: Indeed I am.
Concerning regional policy, in a period, again, of intense recession there is the difficulty that the long-term underlying structural problems of the traditionally assisted areas can be overlaid by the very heavy unemployment that results from a recession. If we are not careful, we could greatly damage the long-term effect of regional policy if we reacted against what is inevitably a short-term problem of unemployment.

Sir A. Meyer: I do not dissent from what the Minister has said, but is he aware that in certain areas, notably of the county of Clwyd, there is a longterm structural unemployment problem? This is an area which, compared with surrounding areas, is without the development area status of, for example, Merseyside and the rest of Wales.

Mr. Williams: I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point. An application is before me at present from the Clwyd County Council. The hon. Gentleman should be perhaps somewhat relieved that the application is lying on my desk instead of on the desk of his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow Central (Mr. Grant), who wants to restrict the areas that are receiving this assistance.

Mr. Crawford: In the context of an earlier question put by the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan), does not the Minister agree that regional policy has been a disaster as far as Scotland is concerned? Does he not agree that the only way in which Scottish industry can be rejuvenated would be by a Scottish Assembly with full economic powers?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman lives in a poly-paradise. He does not seem to recognise that, if it had not been for regional policy—I hope that the nationalists will turn their attention to this matter—followed by Governments of both major parties over the last 20 to 25 years, the situation in Scotland today would be far worse than it is now. I say that as a Welsh Member of Parliament. For years many parts of England


have forgone industrial development in order to help my part of the country and the hon. Gentleman's part of the country. The incredible ingratitude and bitterness of the nationalists should be seen for what it is.

Mr. Joan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the regional policies pursued by all Governments since the end of the last war have succeeded in maintaining the unity of Britain and that it is good economic policy to ensure that industry is dispersed throughout Britain, including Wales and Scotland? In view of this, although the Government are doing much in the way of selective assistance, will they look again at REP, which has worked well over the years?

Mr. Williams: I entirely accept my hon. Friend's basic premise. I am sure that most hon. Members—except a few of the frantic fringe—accept that we must have a unified approach to our industrial problems.
As for REP, the successive effects of inflation have meant that its real impact, in terms of cost to a firm, became very marginal. It seemed far better in that case to concentrate money on those really in need, who could be saved by the much higher rate of temporary employment subsidy—I am sure my hon. Friend will accept that it is a very valuable asset for many firms—and to release money for selective assistance, such as the new selective scheme that my right hon. Friend announced earlier and such as the £65 million scheme for the shipbuilding industry announced about a fortnight ago.

Steel

Mr. Hardy: asked the Secretary of State for Industry at what proportion of capacity the British steel industry is currently operating; how this compares with the present position of other steel-producing countries in Western Europe;-and if he expects any early improvement in orders and production.

Mr. Kaufman: The British steel industry operated at about 75 per cent. capacity in 1976 compared with an estimate of 65 per cent. for the Six using ECSC definitions. Part of the difference was due to production for stock by the British industry, including counter-cyclical stockbuilding by BSC. I do not expect a signifi-

cant upturn in demand before the third quarter of 1977.

Mr. Hardy: I thank my hon. Friend for that information. Will he assure us that the policy of ingot stocking will be continued and that the maximum sustainable level of activity will be maintained, particularly by the Corporation's most profitable plant?

Mr. Kaufman: I can give my hon Friend the assurance that we regard the stockbuilding schemes that have taken place as having been extremely important in maintaining employment and making sure that industry is ready for the upturn when it comes. Regarding my hon. Friend's latter remarks, we have made quite clear that we cannot accept artificial restrictions on production, although we are very anxious to co-operate with the Commission in an anti-recession scheme which helps all European steel-making countries.

Mr. Emery: As the industry has a 25 per cent. under-used capacity, is not the Minister particularly concerned? What steps will he take to rectify the problem of the amount of imported steel that is being brought into Britain particularly to meet the demands of the car industry?

Mr. Kaufman: As the hon. Gentleman will know, we have taken steps to deal with special imports of certain steels, and we are watching that matter. At the same time, we know that the industry is not yet able to meet certain demands. It is obviously important to the maintenance of other sectors of the economy that the imports should take place. However, Sir Charles Villiers has made clear that he wishes to ensure that the import penetration of steel is reduced as rapidly as possible.

Motor Industry

Mr. David Price: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what studies he has initiated with British Leyland and the NEB as to the optimum size of a factory in the British motor industry measured by the total number of people employed in such a factory; and how many factories in British Leyland are currently larger than the optimum size.

Mr. Kaufman: None.

Mr. Price: Is the Minister aware that his reply is rather unsatisfactory? He might put his mind to the fact that it is clear to me that as factories get larger there is a danger of increasing alienation between workers and management. I put this thought to the Minister. It may be that part of British Leyland's continuing difficulties lies in the very large number of people employed in British Leyland factories, and that the Minister, the NEB, and the British Leyland Board should reflect on the cautionary tale of Jack and the Beanstalk.

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman has raised a question of some importance. However, I am sure he will know from his own studies that there are not unanimous views along the lines he has suggested. If he examines such books as "Economies of Scale in a Manufacturing Industry" by C. F. Pratten and "The Motor Industry: An Economic Survey" by D. G. Rhys, he will find that there are differing analyses. If the hon. Gentleman goes abroad to Germany, he will find that the view held there is entirely contrary to that which he has put forward, and in Japan very much more so. It is not that I dispute the views of the hon. Gentleman, but they are not proven.

Yorkshire and Humberside

Mr. James Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for Industry what increase in annual grant he has given to the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association; and how this compares with other regional associations such as the North-East and the North-West.

Mr. Cryer: As I announced on 18th February, I have doubled the grant aid to the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association and the North-West Industrial Development Association. The grant to the North of England Development Association has been slightly more than doubled. The new grants for each of the next three years are £30,000 to Yorkshire and Humberside, £135,000 to the North-West and £250,000 to the North of England.

Mr. Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for the extra £15,000, which is what a doubling means. Is he aware that that is in no way satisfactory to the officers of the association or to myself and my col-

leagues who represent constituencies in Yorkshire and Humberside? Without appearing to be too churlish, I must say that it appears to us that those who shout loudest north of the Tweed seem to jump the queue for supplementary Government cash.

Mr. Cryer: I am sure that my hon. Friend does not want to be churlish. Very full and proper consideration was given to the assessment of these grants. I should point out that the North and North-West areas contain special development areas whereas Yorkshire and Humberside does not. This is an indication that their problems are worse than those of Yorkshire and Humberside, and, as a consequence, the grants are assessed on this basis. I know that the Chairman of the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association has written to us expressing concern. We shall reply to him in the fullest possible terms. We much appreciate the excellent work that is being done by the association in attracting industry and jobs to the area.

Mr. John Mendelson: Without wanting to enter into a competition to see who might be more churlish with my hon. Friend, may I ask whether he will address himself to the particular purposes of the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association and, in the light of that, reconsider what he said this afternoon before he sends a final reply to that association? The purposes of the association are fully supported by business, trade in and many social organisations Yorkshire covering a wide area, and by all the Members from Yorkshire and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is reasonable to ask the hon. Member to put his question. Fair play. The Minister has given information—

Mr. John Mendelson: I was about to complete my question.

Mr. Speaker: Very well, I ask the hon. Member to complete it.

Mr. John Mendelson: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the reply that he gave this afternoon on behalf of the Government?

Mr. Cryer: I very much appreciate the promotional work that the association undertakes, and I have mentioned that.
My reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Johnson), who, I thought, was rather less churlish than was my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), is that this represents a 100 per cent. increase in public expenditure for the Yorkshire and Humberside Development Association, and not many public or assisted bodies can say that they have received that kind of help.

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION LEGISLATION

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Attorney-General whether he will give particulars of trials held under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act of the United Kingdom Parliament and the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Act of Oireactas Eireann.

The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): The hon. Member's Question refers to the Criminal Jurisdiction Act 1975 and its counterpart in the Republic of Ireland, the Criminal Law (Jurisdiction) Act 1976. The Acts came into force on 1st June 1976 and relate only to persons arrested for offences committed after that date. No prosecutions have yet been brought under either Act.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is it not the case that an extradition must be refused before the second-best procedure, which is the subject of the Question, is invoked? Is the Attorney-General aware that New Scotland Yard is reported to have alleged that wanted terrorists are walking about at large in the Irish Republic, but Dublin replied that warrants have not been sent by the British police to the Garda Siochana? Will the Government look into this as it is clearly a source of friction between the two Governments, who should be and are co-operating in the war against the common enemy?

The Attorney-General: It is not essential that extradition procedure should be taken before a resort to this Act is followed. On the hon. Member's second point, I will look into this matter. I welcome what he has said about the desirability of very close collaboration between the two nations, and I have no reason to doubt that this is taking place.

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Attorney-General when he next expects to meet the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Attorney-General: I meet the Director as often as the need arises. I last met him on 25th February.

Mr. Janner: When my right hon. and learned Friend met the Director of Public Prosecutions, did he discuss with him the problems caused by lack of control by the public over the rights of private citizens to institute prosecutions, as opposed to civil proceedings? Does he agree that this trend is being exacerbated by an attempt to erode the discretion vested in the Attorney-General in a recent case?

The Attorney-General: That was not one of the subjects on the agenda at that particular meeting. Certainly I agree that there is a very distinct danger in what my hon. and learned Friend has said. I accept the need for private prosecutions to continue, but what I do not like—and, I imagine, other hon. Members do not like—is organisations making use of the private prosecution system or the analogous civil system in relation to one particular class of offence rather than across the board on all offences committed.

Mr. Eyre: Can the Attorney-General confirm that next week he will make a statement on the report of the Director of Public Prosecutions about allegations of corruption in Birmingham?

The Attorney-General: I have answered a number of questions about that par. ticular matter. It has been a difficult matter to resolve, and I hope that a definite decision will be taken shortly.

Mr. Prescott: Has the Attorney-General discussed with the Director of


Public Prosecutions the possibility of a prosecution of Mr. Tikkoo, the owner of the "Globtik Venus", who raised a mercenary gang of armed people to attack a British ship and her crew? It would appear that Mr. Tikkoo in public statements seems to have committed an act of conspiracy, presumably supported by Opposition Members who are his parliamentary advisers, and the directors of his board.

The Attorney-General: My only information on this matter comes from the newspapers and the other media. I have asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to consider the matter and advise me whether offences have been committed.

Mr. Stanbrook: What progress has been made on proposals to reform the prosecution system, and in particular on the proposal to open regional offices of the DPP?

The Attorney-General: The question of reform of the prosecution system is for the Home Secretary, and questions about this should be directed to him. Needless to say, he seeks my views and those of the DPP when considering the matter.

Mr. Rooker: asked the Attorney General what is the establishment of the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Attorney-General: The present complement of the Director of Public Prosecutions is one Director, one deputy director, two assistant directors, eight assistant solicitors, 52 senior legal assistants and legal assistants, and 140 administrative and secretarial staff, making a total of 204.

Mr. Rooker: Is the Attorney-General sure that the complement of the DPP's office is enough, bearing in mind the heavy load placed on that office as a result of company frauds? These amount to at least 28 current cases in which companies are being investigated by the DPP. It takes an inordinate length of time to get these cases to the courts—up to six years, as in the case of the Pergamon outfit.

The Attorney-General: The needs of the DPP's office depend in part on the matters with which it is concerned, subject to the regulations affecting it. They

depend also, in part, on the number of cases which local police superintendents send to the DPP for advice. I am not in a position to reply directly to the question because, as I have said, the whole matter of the prosecution process is one for the Home Secretary, even though I am closely concerned with it.

Mr. Ryman: Can the Attorney-General confirm that there is a serious problem in staffing the DPP's office, in view of the vast amount of work which that office must undertake? Would he agree that it is difficult to attract sufficiently competent people into that office with the salaries that are offered at the present time?

The Attorney-General: I have said many times that careers in the Government legal service generally are very rewarding, particularly in relation to the type of work carried out. I would hope that more practising members of the Bar would, after a period of time in practice, think it right to apply for positions in the office of the DPP.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis) to raise his point of order.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: You were kind enough, Mr. Speaker, to say that I could raise a point of order on Question No. 18. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) put a perfectly reasonable Question to the Secretary of State for Industry in connection with the Post Office. I came in with a supplementary question on the profiteering of the Post Office at the present time. The Minister did not answer any questions on this, and you, taking your cue from that, suggested that the Minister could not answer my question.
We are in a difficulty with the Department of Industry. When we put down Questions relating to nationalisation to the Department of Energy we generally receive answers, but when we put Questions to the Department of Industry about the Post Office we do not. The Post Office is an important organisation which charges the people of this country Large amounts of money for their telephones, stamps and so on, and it is suggesting


that it will put up prices. Unless we get answers to our questions, we shall have to go back to having a Postmaster-General operating on the Government Front Bench.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: It might help the House if I first answer the point of order. There might then not be any other points of order. The Post Office is now a public corporation. The only Questions permitted on the Order Paper are those that come within the limited field for which, by law, the Secretary of State for Industry is responsible. That, no doubt, explains a lot of the difficulties.

Mr. Crouch: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was intrigued to see Question No. 18 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Benyon) because I was surprised that it had got there at all. Can you advise how it is that a Question to which the Minister is so ready to say "This cannot be answered because it is not my responsibility, and the Question should be directed to the Post Office" appears on the Order Paper? Why does not the Minister, as he has no responsibility for the subject, redirect the Question before it comes here? As a rule, he has a fortnight in which to see Questions.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that we are in a genuine dilemma about being able to question the activities of the Government in the business of industries for which they are directly responsible, namely, the nationalised industries. If this had been a Question, for example, about how much investment had been made by British Leyland last year in new machine tools, I am sure that we should have received an answer, but on the Post Office, never.

Mr. Greville Janner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not right that this lack of accountability about the Post Office stretches far beyond prices? I seek your guidance on a particularly worrying matter. The Deputy Director General of the Post Office has refused to give me any information about an admitted discriminatory practice in my own constituency concerning the giving of credit to people who live in what the Post Office calls good streets and not to others. I have attempted in many

ways to get answers from Ministers in this respect. Is this a question of privilege? If it is neither a question of privilege nor one that I can raise with the Minister, it appears that Members of Parliament are hamstrung in their attempts to get fair play for people in their constituencies.

Mr. Neubert: With reference, Mr. Speaker, to what you said about ministerial responsibility, may I inform you that this morning I was advised that a Question that I put down last Monday for Oral Answer next Monday by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection asking what representations he had personally received about the mounting increase in gas prices had been transferred to the Department of Energy? Could you, as the custodian of Back Benchers' interests, advise us how Ministers can be prevented from arbitrarily avoiding Questions the look of which they do not like?

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Further to the point of order about Question No. 18, Mr. Speaker. We know how partticular the Table Office is about accepting Questions. Therefore, clearly it is in some quandary with the Department of Industry. Would it be possible for new guidelines to be laid down as to exactly what responsibility for the Post Office is taken on the Floor of the House?

Mr. Speaker: If no other hon. Member wishes to raise a point or order, I shall reply to the matters that have been raised.
First, I say to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) that I cannot help him if he cannot get an answer from a public corporation. With regard to answers by Ministers, again I am not responsible and the hon. and learned Member must pursue that as best he can in another way.
The transfer of Questions by Ministers is again not my responsibility. This is a very old system that is adopted—it has operated in the House ever since I have been here and, I think, since long before that—that when Ministers feel that Questions ought to be answered by another Department, they transfer them.
The Question on the Order Paper is there because it deals with one of the responsibilities of the Minister, and that


is the approval of capital projects by the Post Office.

AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL

Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley to raise his point of order.

Mr. Adley: I apologise, Mr. Speaker, for giving you little or no notice of my point of order. It relates to a letter that was placed on the Letter Board by the Lord Chancellor just before Questions started this afternoon, and it deals with the handling by the Government in another place of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill.
In the light of the Government's decision to withdraw most of the ship-repairing companies from the Bill, you will appreciate, Mr. Speaker, that circumstances have changed substantially. I should like to register the strongest protest at the indecent haste with which the Government are proceeding and Further—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Adley: I am coming to it, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Member is raising a point of order he must not make a speech but come directly to it.

Mr. Adley: My point of order concerns the following phrase in the letter:
It has been agreed that the Bill, as amended by the deletion of the shiprepairing companies, will go through unopposed.
First, I do not know what knowledge the Lord Chancellor has about what happens in another place. I realise, Mr. Speaker, that you have no jurisdiction over this matter, but, with the present state of the Bill, what happens in another place determines what happens in this House. If the Bill goes through unopposed, as the Lord Chancellor seems to be suggesting, or if there is no time for representations to be made to their Lordships for amendments to be placed before the other place, this House will find itself in the position of being able to do nothing further with the Bill.
For the 2,000 people employed at Vosper Thornycroft's ship repairing company in Southampton, whose livelihood and future are at stake, it is wholly inadequate for the usual channels—I do not except my own Front Bench—to get together and for the Lord Chancellor to write as he did, and for the Secretary of State for Industry to refer to the cosy arrangement mentioned in his supplementary answer earlier this afternoon, saying that the matter has all been agreed.
Would you, Mr. Speaker, therefore make representations to the Lord Chancellor to see that the proceedings in another place tomorrow are not concluded tomorrow but are continued on at least one more day this week, so that there will be time for outside bodies to consult the workers and the representatives of the workers concerned and, if necessary, for amendments to be produced in another place, which, if passed, would come back here?

Mr. Viggers: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a matter of great concern for the Portsmouth and Southampton areas, where Vosper Thomycroft's ship repairing section operates. The arrangement which we Back Benchers read in the newspapers has been made—that certain ship repairing companies will be exempted from the aircraft and shipbuilding nationalisation proposals—did not include the ship repairing division of Vosper Thornycroft.
The letter from the Lord Chancellor, which I have had only a brief opportunity of seeing, refers to the Bill going through "unopposed". That presumably means unopposed by the major parties. But I cannot see how it can possibly be said by any individual that the Bill will pass through both Houses unopposed by every Member of Parliament. Who made this arrangement and on whose behalf? Therefore, in view of the great urgency of this matter to a number of people in the area where Vosper Thornycroft employees work, would you be prepared, despite the complete absence of notice, to accept an application under Standing Order No. 9 for an emergency debate on the subject?

Mr. Speaker: I have listened with care, out of courtesy, to both hon. Members. However, what happens in another place


is not my concern. If I started making representations about what happens there, they would start making representations about what happens here, and we should not like that. It is none of my concern.
Later—

Mr. Adley: On a point of order. I am sorry to pursue this point, Mr. Speaker, but the letter from the Lord Chancellor which I read clearly indicates that an arrangement has been made between the Government and the Opposition which is affecting another place. I raised my original point of order with you because the state of this Bill is such that the only items which can return to this House from the other place are Lords amendments. 11;the Bill were at any other stage, I would understand that there was no reason for you to intervene in what the other place does. However, in the circumstances, unless some representations are made to another place, there is no way in which this House can express its views on matters relevant to that Bill and to the changed circumstances since the Government's announcement of their preparedness to delete the ship repairing companies.

Mr. Speaker: I can understand the hon. Member's feelings, but I can only reiterate that the business of another place is their concern. I am concerned with what comes before us in this place.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Ridley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I return to the earlier point of order about the Post Office—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have ruled that that was not really a point of order. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too late"] Order. The hon. Member is very good to try to assist me, but I will try to manage without his help; we might do a little better. As I have already said, I cannot intervene in what happens in another place.

Mr. Ridley: I just wanted to suggest, on a point of order, that Questions which have been accepted by the Table Office in relation to nationalised industries often go far beyond Ministers' legal statutory responsibilities for nationalised industries. I refer particularly to Question No. 22 in the name of the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) which asks

at what proportion of capacity the steel industry is currently operating".
That goes beyond the responsibilities of Ministers. It would help if, where Minis. ters are responsible for matters, the Table Office would take Questions and if where Ministers are not responsible it did not take them.
In fact, the Government are responsible under the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act for the level of charges in the Post Office. Therefore, it seems to be totally appropriate that the Government should be held responsible for the threatened increase in postal charges, whereas they cannot really be held responsible for the level of capacity at which the British steel industry is operating. Might that not help to solve the problem in which the House finds itself?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I will consider what he has said. If I find that there is anything helpful that I can say to the House, I will certainly do so. If I find that there is nothing very helpful that I can say, I shall regard silence as golden.

Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Has your permission been sought by the Ministry of Defence representative to answer Question No. 34 today? If that permission has not been sought, could you ensure that the Written Reply reaches me not in two or three hours but very quickly?

Mr. Speaker: My permission has not been sought on that Question.

POLICE FORCE (WEST MIDLANDS)

Mr. Litterick: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
the apparently increasing use of arbitrary violence by the West Midlands Police Force against the Irish community in Birmingham.
I am prompted to raise this matter by the case of a constituent of mine which is but the latest in a long and depressing series of such cases. Mr. John Joseph Girvan, a bricklayer, one evening last


week was physically dragged from a telephone booth in Kings Heath and taken to Kings Heath police station, where he was slapped, punched, dragged by the hair and abused obscenely in very specific terms by a number of people whom I can now describe only as uniformed hooligans.
To convey properly to the House the horrifying flavour of this attack on a constituent, it is necessary to say that, within a few seconds of this man being apprehended by those three uniformed hooligans, he was referred to as "an Irish bastard". The language which was used on my constituent during the subsequent eight hours was of the same nature.
I must emphasise that during the eight hours in question this man was, by definition and by law, an innocent man. During that time he was subject to the most hideous humiliations. He was refused access to a lawyer, his Irishness was constantly emphasised by the uniformed hooligans who had him in their custody and he was never for a moment allowed to forget that they had preponderant physical power over him. They did this by slapping, and punching him, dragging him by the hair and physically throwing him into a cell, only to pull him out and throw him in again.
Mr. Girvan was intimidated by threats that he would get a long sentence and rough treatment. He was promised that if he submitted to photography he would be allowed to go. He did so and was not allowed to go. He was, in short, terrorised.
As I said, this case is but the latest of a series in my constituency. We all appreciate that the fabric of the law and the institutions which preserve public order in our society depend heavily on the respect with which the public holds officers of the law and the law enforcement agencies of our community. In

Birmingham, the Irish community cannot now see the law enforcement agencies in that light, because they—particularly their young men—are being systematically terrorised by members of the West Midlands police.
This is a matter of extreme urgency to the House. I believe that similar things have happened in other large cities. I therefore beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment so that we may discuss the matter now.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
the apparently increasing use of arbitrary violence by the West Midlands Police Force against the Irish community in Birmingham.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. I listened carefully to the representations of the hon. Member. All that I have to decide is whether the business of the House should be changed tonight or tomorrow so that this matter may be discussed. I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the terms of the Standing Order. I therefore cannot submit his application to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE(CONSOLIDATED FUND) (No. 2) BILL

Ordered,
That, notwithstanding the practice of the House relating to the interval between the various stages of Bills of aids and supplies, more than one stage of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting.—[Mr. Bates.]

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — ROADS (HUNTINGDONSHIRE)

3.50 p.m.

Sir David Renton: I am grateful for this opportunity to refer briefly, under Class VI, Vote 1, Sub-Head A2, to road building in my constituency, especially the carrying out of a major road improvement between Cambridge and Godmanchester along the line of the A604, which has become an increasingly important east-west traffic route between the East Coast ports and the Midlands.
The need to turn this road into a dual carriageway has been under consideration for more than seven years. In my remarks I want to help the Eastern Road Construction Unit, with which I have crossed swords in the past and with some of whose major decisions I am still in disagreement. On this occasion I want to help the unit to get its priorities right, to save money and farmland, and to protect the environment and the quality of life in my constituency, especially in the large village of Fenstanton.
I am glad to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport present on the Front Bench this afternoon. I am sorry that he has been given such short notice of this debate. I cannot possibly expect a long or detailed reply to the points that I shall be making, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear them in mind. The action taken as a result of this debate will decide what further action I may find it necessary to try to take at a later stage.
Some 15 or 20 years ago a perfectly good bypass, with very wide verges, was built at Fenstanton. Presumably the verges were made wide with a view to the possibility of enlargement at a later stage. Unfortunately, the line chosen for the bypass then split the main part of Fenstanton from its southern outskirts, but the people living to the south of the village were able to maintain contact with

the main village because special arrangements had been made for pedestrians and traffic to cross the road.
That bypass has had and still has the great advantage of making the old, long, narrow village street fairly free from traffic. However, unfortunately it is now proposed to turn that bypass into a slip road as part of the arrangements for making the new A604 into a two-lane dual carriageway and, instead of using the bypass as it is and widening it slightly and perhaps straightening it a little, it is proposed to take quite a big loop, bigger than the present loop, which will take up a fair amount of farmland. This loop will be about 300 yards long and it is being extended eastwards from the eastern end of the bypass. It is proposed to do that so as to make the A604 into a straighter road.
It must be accepted that by not having a bypass far to the south—I will come to that possibility in a moment; I concede that that one has gone past—the people living to the south will be even more cut off from the main village than they were before, because with a dual carriageway we must reconcile ourselves to fast and an ever-increasing volume of traffic.
There will be extra expense involved in the construction that is proposed, namely, by turning the present bypass into a slip road and building another bypass immediately adjoining and to the south of it, and by extending it for 300 yards eastwards. I suggest that that will involve unnecessary expense and the unnecessary use of farmland. It would be much better to make the fullest possible use of the present bypass.
It was suggested some years ago by Fenstanton Parish Council that an entirely new bypass well to the south of the whole of the village should be built to avoid disturbance. It might have cost more, and it might have used even more farmland than is now proposed, but now that we see what is proposed, both in the proposals that I have described and in the proposals that I am about to describe as regards the side roads, we must recognise that the route to the south might have been better.
I hope that even at this late stage the proposal that I have described for the line of this trunk road, where it comes


along adjacent to where the bypass is, can be dropped. No new notices would be needed, as I understand it, and therefore no delay involved, because the widening of the present bypass could take place under the present trunk road order and, indeed, would save the compulsory purchase of a great deal of land which it is now proposed to take.
My other complaint relates to the draft side roads order as it affects Fenstanton. There are five main matters of complaint that Fenstanton Parish Council has put forward. There are other minor complaints, with which I will not trouble the House.
I cannot refrain from saying that this is one of those rare cases when one could make one's views much more clear to the House if one could only point to a map, but our procedure does not permit that, so I must do my poor best without a map.
The first main complaint is that the Hilton Road is to be shut off completely. That is the road that goes to a village to the south of the southern part of Fenstanton. The closing of that road will have the strange effect that all buses —a considerable number of them—will have to go right into Fenstanton main street, turn round and go right out the same way. Secondly, there will be a great increase in traffic on the High Street and 90 per cent. of it will have to use the eastern exit only.
Next, there is to be a flyover built at the western end of the village. That may be unavoidable, but it will certainly be expensive. Fourth, there is to be a big piece of ground formed between the present bypass and the proposed new line of the bypass that I have described, and this will, in effect, create a sterilised area of no use for farming. This is the sort of land that will lend itself to fill-in development, since one cannot see what other good use could be made of it, but if ever there were a place where fill-in development would be inappropriate this is it.
Finally—this is also a matter of public interest there is at Fenstanton a coach station of the Whippet Bus Company. As a result of the side roads order the buses would have to do 1,000 miles more

a year, and this would no doubt increase the cost of the service.
Thus, the side roads order would be an expensive scheme to put into operation. It would create disturbance and noise again in the High Street, which has been remarkably free from both ever since the present bypass was built. 1 hope, therefore, that there can be second thoughts about the whole of this scheme. I cannot believe that it is beyond the ingenuity even of the Eastern Road Construction Unit to think of something simpler and cheaper which will create less disturbance.
I make two constructive proposals. First, any money saved on this scheme could be well spent on matters that have been urgent for years in that corner of my constituency. At St. Ives there is a major road that has to cross a bridge. It is a beautiful little bridge, with a chapel on it, but it is 600 years old, with only one lane of traffic, and it is quite unsuited for modern needs. For the past 15 years one has had to consider what line a relief road and new bridge should take. It has now been decided that there should be one, and that it should go well to the east of St. Ives, but the need is urgent.
My second constructive proposal is far more modest, though none the less essential. The recent heavy rains which have swollen the River Great Ouse to such an extent have emphasised the need for it. At Earith, where the main road into the Isle of Ely crosses the River Great Ouse, there are two bridges, separated by only about 80 yards of causeway between them. Those two bridges were rebuilt in recent years, but, unfortunately, when they were rebuilt the causeway was not built up to a proper level, with the result that the causeway is flooded every time there is any flooding in the area. Any money saved at Fenstanton could be used on that alone, and it would do a great public service.
The priorities, therefore, I suggest, are these: first, there should be a rethinking of what is proposed for the Fenstanton bypass and the side roads; second, there should be a firm declaration as to when St. Ives will have its new bridge instead of the 600-year-old single carriage way bridge now being used; third—this is the easiest, though perhaps the most


important in certain respects—the causeway should be built up between the two bridges at Earith.

4.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) fox raising the question of the improvement of the A604 between Girton and Godmanchester and, in particular, the section relating to the Fenstanton bypass. In company with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I regret that we cannot have an illuminated screen—perhaps above Mr. Speaker's Chair—on which maps and other matters of interest could be shown to illustrate the roads under discussion. It is difficult to explain what one has in mind without some means of illustration, but, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who did it rather well, I thought. I shall do my best to overcome that disadvantage.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman has for many years taken an interest in this route, as I know from having studied the correspondence, and has directed attention in particular to the routes of the A14 and A604 within his constituency. I know that he is concerned about the effect of the Fenstanton bypass and the claim on agricultural land which it will entail, although he very fairly pointed out that the original proposal—which he, among others, I believe, advocated—for a bypass much further south would perhaps have taken even more agricultural land if it had been finally chosen as the route.
Before doing my best to answer the detailed points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, perhaps I should try to put the matter in perspective by saying that the proposed improvement of the A604 between Godmanchester and Bar Hill near Cambridge forms an important part of the new high standard route between East London and the north of England via the M11, part of which is now completed. I refer here to the route via the A604, the A14 and the Al. Part of the M11 has been built, and the section between Redbridge and north of Bishops Stortford will be open for traffic in the spring. We hope to let contracts for the section from north of Bishops Stortford to Stump Cross and the Cam-

bridge western bypass—this will be of interest to the right hon. and learned Gentleman—this summer.
The A604 Huntingdon—Godmanchester bypass has been open to traffic for some time, and the improvement of the section between Girton and Bar Hill to the east of Fenstanton is under construction. The part which we are talking about, therefore, will be the last link in a rather important chain of high standard dual carriageway road running basically from the Al in the north down to Last London. It is therefore a very important route.
There is also a certain amount of cross traffic via the A45 which will ultimately go via the Cambridge northern bypass and will take traffic from the Midlands down towards Ipswich. Again, therefore, it is important in considering the justification for the Fenstanton bypass to recognise that there is here an important crossroads and, what is more, a crossroads between growing areas.
Proposals for the trunking and improvement of the A604 between Godmanchester and Girton were published in 1971 and at a public inquiry held in 1972 the Fenstanton Parish Council put forward an alternative route for the Fenstanton bypass to the south of the line now proposed. That was the alternative proposal to which I have already referred, but it was rejected by the independent inspector in favour of the route which we are now discussing.
I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, although he may not like the the route finally chosen, it has been designed to make as little claim as possible on agricultural land and to make the fullest possible use of the existing road. It is only at the village of Fenstanton that it departs from the existing road, so it is clear that an effort has been made to improve matters along the existing alignment, which I believe to be fundamentally right if one can do it without too much demolition of property alongside the road and so on.
The reason for having another bypass as opposed to improving the existing bypass is that, although the existing bypass has wide verges, its alignment is not satisfactory in that it is rather curved for the volumes of traffic which the road improved as I have dscribed will have to take. I think that the estimate is


that there will be an increase of traffic of about 87 per cent. up to 1995—a very large increase—and we are talking here of approximately 29,000 vehicles a day. Obviously, those are only approximate figures, and one would not wish to be judged on them, but that is the sort of magnitude. That is why we cannot simply improve the Fenstanton bypass, with its unsatisfactory curves and the roads coming into it from the village, and leave it at that.
This is the sort of problem which we have had with the existing Fenstanton bypass. The road from the village itself goes into the main road, and it is not possible to get rid of that junction without the sort of realignment which we have on the new road. These are basically the reasons why we have to go for the solution proposed. It is really a matter of the volume of traffic expected to use the road once all the sections are complete.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about further isolation of the people living to the south of the village as a result of these additional improvements. One can see that that is likely to be the case. Nevertheless, if we had just improved the existing bypass, the people near it would have complained of the noise of the additional traffic. So it is very much a swings and roundabouts situation, as so often happens with road improvements. While the new scheme may have the disadvantage of isolating slightly further people to the south of the village, people slightly to the north of the village will be grateful for the lessening of traffic noise which they will get with the building of the new bypass.
Members of the Eastern Road Construction Unit met the parish council and villagers recently. I hope that it was a constructive meeting. Judging by the reports I have received, the matter was thoroughly discussed and many detailed questions were gone into at considerable length. There was a thorough airing of the various complaints. There will be a public inquiry into the side-road orders which will provide further opportunities for these detailed points to be raised. So we are not at the end of the road in talking about the problems which will arise from the new bypass.
The closing of the Hilton road would, according to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, bring more buses into he village of Fenstanton. That may well be so, but I do not think that the increase would necessarily be significant. It may be possible to avoid their going through the heart of the village. One wants to achieve that, if it is possible, and one will certainly work towards that end. I understand that schemes are being considered whereby buses approaching from the east in particular may be able to avoid the heart of the village. That point also applies to the Whippet coaches. We could possibly reduce the impact on the village by a sensible scheme which will at least avoid the heart of the village itself.
Whippet Coaches moved into its present site in 1974, well after all these details about the new road proposals were well known—a factor which must be borne in mind when considering these problems.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman raised two other points in this context which I would like to study, and if there is anything further I can add I will write to him. He had in mind, for example, the in-fill problem between the old and the new bypasses, and I shall study it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we should concentrate effort instead of two alternative schemes. The first of these was the St. Ives bridge. I can see that it is an extremely unsatisfactory road. I know it myself, as I know Fenstanton village and the bypass. Last Monday, I had a meeting with the chairman of the transportation committee of the Cambridgeshire County Council, when we talked about various problems of the county. We went into the question of the St. Ives bridge, and I undertook to look into the matter carefully with a view to making the maximum possible progress, although it is subject to the moratorium that we now have. But I will bear in mind what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said and what I was told at my meeting last Monday.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's second alternative concerned the Earith road. That is a county scheme. I accept that a problem has arisen as a result of the improvement of the two bridges, with the causeway now being too low. But it is fundamentally a matter for the county's


own priorities. Again, however, it is something that we might take up in the context of the informal discussions that I have had with the county council. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment was also in Cambridgeshire recently, so we are all well aware of the problems in that area, and we will take on board what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said today.

Orders of the Day — FACTORY CLOSURES (NORTHERN REGION)

4.16 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Wiley: I am obliged to the Chair for affording us an opportunity to raise the question of the Plessey closures. I am also grateful to the Departments of Employment and Industry for agreeing to a deputation from Sunderland meeting the respective Ministers of State tomorrow. shall confine myself to the subject of the closure of the Sunderland Plessey factory, but I share the concern about the position in the North-West.
We have to consider this closure in context, and therefore we must look first at the position of the Northern Region. Along with Scotland, the Northern Region ranks as the region with the worst unemployment, and the prospects are not good. A fairly good indicator are the construction trades. Unemployment among craftsmen in the building trades has increased by 40 per cent. in the last four months. Unemployment in the area is now running at an unprecedentedly high figure in the building industry.
All this re-emphasises the need for a quick decision bringing British Shipbuilders' headquarters to the North-East. Wearside is the worst-hit area in the Northern Region. We are told that this is due to the loss of the traditional industries, but alongside that we now have, in the closure of Plessey, the loss of new technological industries. Unemployment on Wearside is three times what it was in 1966. It is running at the level of 11 per cent. to 12 per cent., and the male unemployment rate is between 13 per cent. and 14 per cent. But I emphasise that the Wearside area is large. Within it are districts whose unemployment figures are much higher than these figures. We have unemployment that is comparable with that of the 1930s.
This is a serious situation, and we welcome the fact that we are to have seven more advance factories, although I must express my concern that the Department of Industry felt that it could not encourage the local authority workshops. I think that these would have provided an aid and should have been encouraged, While we welcome the building of seven more advance factories, we must recognise that we already have seven factories empty. The building of advance factories will not solve our problem, although we welcome it in that it will provide something for the future. We cannot afford to have these factories empty, and we cannot afford to have Plessey's being added to the seven empty factories.
The position of the Sunderland Plessey factory has to be considered in the context of the telecommunications industry, which is largely dependent on the Post Office, which provides two-thirds of the orders taken by the industry. No one can deny that over the past few years there has been an erratic and irresponsible ordering policy from the Post Office.
I should like to summarise. There was a 40 per cent. cutback under the Conservative Government just before the General Election. The cuts were then restored, to a limited extent, but further cutbacks were subsequently envisaged, and there followed the statement by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). That statement was understood to be sufficiently definitive to ensure that there would be no loss of working in the factories, but since then the programme has been revised four times.
The basic cause has been, first, the economic recession and its effect on the Post Office, secondly, the effect of the increase in tariffs imposed by the Post Office and, thirdly, the swing to a fully electronic switching equipment system and, as an intermediary, the TXE 2 and the TXE 4. The factories are dependent on Post Office orders, and Post Office orders very much affect export orders. Rightly or wrongly, the companies feel that this chopping and changing of ordering, and the way that it has now been imposed, has virtually killed the export potential of the industry.
There has been a dispute between the Post Office, the companies and the


unions. The Prime Minister said last week that there would be an inquiry into the Post Office calculations and that Professor Posner would hold the inquiry. That idea is not new. Although it was said last week, the Secretary of State said a few weeks ago that there would be such an inquiry. Not only is it not new; it is inadequate. The terms of reference are not wide enough to deal with the issues at stake. In any case, it is unacceptable locally.
As some of my hon. Friends will know, we had trouble at Greenwells. There was an inquiry in that case, but at the end of the day the redundancies took effect. As an aside, I would say that a nationalised company cheated on the Employment Protection Act by not affording us the opportunity to take advantage of that Act. We are not persuaded that this inquiry will be either very relevant or very helpful. In the case of the Post Office, we have new measuring techniques. These demonstrate that there would be a substantial and growing surplus of capacity. We are concerned not only about the accuracy of the figures but about their validity.
The first point that arises concerns the marketing and pricing policies of the Post Office. The high cost of telephones installation obviously should be drastically reduced in these circumstances. In addition, there must be a promotional policy to increase sales from the Post Office. The case of West Germany has been cited, where an independently-run campaign met with spectacular success. It is all very well producing figures, but we must also consider the assumptions upon which the figures were based. We want to be satisfied that there will be a joint campaign to promote the use of the telephone.
I have already touched on the second matter that arises. It has been argued, it seems to me convincingly, that the excessively rapid transition to the fully electronic system should be revised. The industry should be given time to condition itself to the new circumstances. This particularly affects Sunderland, because we are concerned with the phasing out of Strowger.
The Government should consider this in its proper context. This may be a

saving to the Post Office, but overall it is a loss to the country. Figures have been produced in terms of redundancy pay and social and other benefits. That will undoubtedly be more expensive to the country than the money which the Post Office will save according to its own figures.
Apart from that, many other matters demand independent investigation. There is the international trunk-switching contract concerning Ericsson's of Sweden. We were assured that this would have no effect on employment. I do not know how that assurance can now be maintained, but that was the case at the time.
We also have the controversial decision to admit Pye/TMC to the domestic market, and there has been the lateness of the Post Office in following up the fully electronic private exchanges. I am not wholly biased against the Post Office exclusively. We want to know why more research and development money has not been put in by the suppliers.
Most important is export performance. Here again we have a pattern, which has become almost traditional in this country, of an industry failing to remain up to date and competitive and steadily losing ground in our export markets. The United Kingdom is now running fifth behind Sweden, West Germany, Japan and Belgium. We must realise that there will be an intense rationalisation in respect of these markets. We must look ahead and see what will happen in Europe as a whole. If we are to bid for a position in Europe we must have a viable industry, otherwise we shall be squeezed out of Europe as a whole.
The telecommunications industry is having to fight for its survival in extremely difficult circumstances. A new generation of telephone exchanges is coming into operation. They are cheap to assemble and maintain and foreign companies have the edge on us because they are already in production with the systems.
Obviously, Professor Posner's inquiry can make no attempt to deal with these essential questions. It has been officially suggested that there ought to be an export consortium. That is well and good, but it is not enough. We are driven to the position that we shall have to have a single company, probably with


the National Enterprise Board having the major holding.
I was concerned about the power station industry when we had a similar sort of inquiry. The present inquiry must be conducted by the Central Policy Review Staff, or a similar body. That is what is needed overall.
We in Sunderland cannot accept the present position that we shall just be put out of work. As was pointed out on Saturday, to some of us who met the trade unions affected, we want a return of the work that has been sub-contracted out of the factory, such as relays being brought in from GEC. We do not want this potential run-down unnecessarily aggravated.
Secondly, the key to this problem is to have a temporary employment subsidy to hold the present position for 12 months. That means that we shall have to persuade Plessey to apply for the subsidy and we shall have to persuade the Government to grant it.
Compared with other regions, the Northern Region is badly off in terms of the temporary employment subsidy. We have lost regional employment premium—a loss of £64 million—which means that we have a good margin within which to work if the intention is to turn to selective aid. If we look to the temporary employment subsidy, oddly enough, we find that in the North we have had only £10 million, whereas, as my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) will know, the North-West has done very well out of it, having had more than £48 million. So this is an opportunity, at any rate, for us to begin to match the North-West.
I am sure that this is a proper use of the subsidy. It would keep the work force in productive employment while the basic structure of the industry was examined and while the Post Office, to some extent at any rate, revised its ordering programmes.
When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mentioned this problem last week, he talked about retraining. Retraining could be done under the umbrella of the temporary employment subsidy. There has to be retraining, of course. Sunderland cannot survive unless there is retraining to get on to new work.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister also talked about alternative production. If we cannot keep Plessey in being, we have to have alternative production. We cannot see this factory closed. We have suffered too much. We have had the experience of Thorn Electric and Greenwells. Now we have Plessey. This factory must be kept going. Again, if we are thinking of coming in with alternative production, the best umbrella is the temporary employment subsidy. This can be provided to Plessey. The company can be persuaded to apply, and the Government should grant the money.
I regard this as a test case for the Government. They were defeated on devolution, partly because some of my colleagues from the Northern Region felt that, as an assisted area, the region had second-class status. We have to overcome this feeling. I do not think that this charge is made out, because, on recent figures, the Government could show that they have aided the North-East comparatively better than some of the other regions. But the feeling is there, and we are very sensitive to it. Therefore, the keeping of this factory in employment is a test case.
Also coming along we have the Budget, and we hear talk of tax concessions. But the major responsibility of the Government is to deal with unemployment. That must be done before any tax concessions are given. I suppose that this is a matter of about £2 million. We need this money. It can keep in employment a couple of thousand people for a year. We need that, and the Government must show that they have the right priorities and that they will ensure that this factory is kept in work.

4.34 p.m.

Mr. T. W. Urwin: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) has been able to initiate this debate on what is a very important subject in the Sunderland area and the Northern Region.
In my right hon. Friend's introductory remarks, he very properly laid stress on the heavy unemployment which exists not only in the Northern Region but more especially in Wearside itself. My constituency lies half divided between Durham County and the Sunderland metropolitan


district as a result of the last local government reorganisation, and it is fair to say that everyone in my constituency is every bit as much concerned as my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier).
My right hon. Friend dealt at some length with the vacuum which would be created if all the efforts to retain the Plessey factory in his constituency eventually failed. There is already building up in Sunderland a massive reaction, with people realising the extent of unemployment, the special skills which they have acquired in telecommunications and the inordinately difficult problems which they will face in finding suitable alternative employment should the Plessey factory close.
My right hon. Friend also referred to the construction industry, with which I have been associated all my life. We extend a very warm welcome to the statement last week about a programme of new advance factories. Even though there are quite a number of empty factories in the Northern Region at present, we must at all times seek to make provision for the expected upturn in the economy, when we are entitled to expect that more industries will come into the Northern Region, so that we have facilities for them to occupy. In turn, it provides a small but much needed fillip for large numbers of construction industry workers who have been unemployed for a considerable time.
I endorse entirely my right hon. Friend's remarks about the first priority having to be the retention of the Plessey factory, preferably in its existing form. But, if it is to be retained, we also understand fully that it must be responsible for the right kinds of manufacturers.
I recall the lobby on this subject of telecommunications by Post Office workers a few weeks ago. The Post Office Engineering Union advised right hon. and hon. Members by letter that it was its firm intention to support all efforts to retain telecommunications work in the development areas. However, the union also went on to point out at some length that it could not support the investment of public funds to manufacture equipment which already was obsolete.
In this connection, the Plessey organisation, anyway in Sunderland, has deservedly come under criticism. It seems that, although it has seen this development coming for some time, it has not been prepared to reinvest and to retool to meet the new challenge in the telecommunications industry. This is the price which 2,000-odd workers in Plessey's Sunderland factory may be called upon to pay for the shortsightedness or possibly the greed of the Plessey company.
As a public corporation, the Post Office is also entitled to some share of recrimination—I put it no higher than that—because of its ordering policy. We are told that there are considerable hiccoughs in the placing of orders. There is no relatively continuous flow of orders for equipment to the firms which are contracted to the Post Office. But, here again, the firms concerned—and I am sure that this is equally true of Plessey—apparently have been quite content for a long time to feed upon the home market to keep their factories in operation, when everyone knows that in this rapidly developing technological age there are ready avenues open all over the world for the exports which these companies are capable of producing. There appears to have been a wholly inadequate accent on the export aspect of the telecommunications industry in Sunderland.
The problems on Sunderland is accentuated, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North has said, by the fact that a considerable amount of work appears to have been sub-contracted to firms outside the northern area. This is work that the union representatives claim could have been done equally well in Sunderland and may well have saved some, if not all, of the jobs. There is also, as my right hon. Friend also pointed out, the question of materials being bought from GEC and from Plessey's own factory in Northern Ireland, which of course does not meet with the approval of the workers in the Sunderland factory.
Unemployment in the Sunderland area is enormous. The morale of people in the area is at present very low indeed. If another 2,000-plus redundant people from Plessey are added to the labour market in a few weeks time, one can imagine how much more chaotic, difficult and desperate the position will be for so


many people searching for all too few vacancies of all kinds. It is imperative that in the 90 days breathing space from last Wednesday, when the announcement was made, the NEB should start busying itself to ascertain just what the prospects are for the retention of the factory and what the NEB can do to assist in rejigging and retooling in order to meet the increasingly difficult challenge of the developing technological age. We must have this breathing space.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North also referred to the temporary employment subsidy. This morning my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South and I went to a meeting attended by a very wide range of local authority representatives, including representatives of the Northern Economic Development Council, representatives of Government Repartments, trade unions, and everyone else who has an interest in employment in Sunderland. The importance of the temporary employment subsidy was referred to at the meeting, but here there could be a difficulty. While the subsidy would certainly be a lifeline in the present difficult circumstances, I understand that it is only the employers who can be held responsible for making an application for temporary employment subsidy. If the attitude of the Plessey management is as intransigent as was outlined this morning and on Saturday at another meeting, I am afraid that the management might not be prepared to make that effort.
In the interests of Sunderland and the interests of the morale of the people of Sunderland I call upon my right hon. Friends in the Department of Industry and the Department of Employment to do everything that they possibly can to ensure that this highly damaging blow does not fall on the people of Sunderland and in particular on the Plessey factory in Sunderland, North.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) for being fortunate enough to obtain a debate at such early notice after the disastrous announcement of the closure of the factory by Plessey last week.
I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) is anxious to speak, but I know that he understands that it may be for the convenience of the House for those hon. Members representing Sunderland to put their views first, and he then hopes to mention the issues that affect Liverpool.
My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin) and I attended a meeting this morning with various representatives from the North, comprising trade union leaders, the development council, the Tyne and Wear County Council, Sunderland District Council, also representatives of the Department of Trade, the National Enterprise Board and the Department of Employment.
The message coming from that meeting load and clear was that this factory must not be allowed to close, certainly not at this stage, for various reasons. There were long discussions this morning on the reasons why the Sunderland factory was in difficulty. One was that it was producing outdated equipment, the Strowger equipment. Another was that the equipment is no longer required because the Post Office has changed its ordering policies and has not maintained the flow of orders to the extent which was expected by the factory. There were other reasons, but all these did not take into consideration the attitude of the people who actually work in the factory.
None of those factors could be laid at the door of the people employed in the factory, who had been taking their intruction from management via the Post Office and, I suppose, via the Government. They feel extremely angry about the treatment they have received. When I asked this morning what discussions had taken place, and what advance notice was given by Plessey, I was very surprised when a local representative of the Department of Trade said that his Department knew nothing about this. The Department knew that the equipment was out-dated and that some changes would he required and that there was a need for new investment in order to produce other equipment, but the representative said that the Department did not know—and I accept that it did not know


—that Plessey would announce last Wednesday that a factory employing 2,088 people was to close. I do not want to put this local official across a barrel, but he told me that in his view his bosses at national level in London also did not know.
To me this is an indictment of the Plessey company. Nor is it the first time that I have had trouble with the Plessey company. Two or three years ago I criticised the company's management-staff consultation procedures to such an extent that Dr. Willits, the chairman of that section, came up to Sunderland to see me about it. Last week we had another example of the staff first finding out that they are out of a job when they saw it on television.
These are extremely serious cases. The Plessey factory employs men, women and younger people. We have families with as many as four wage earners all working in the factory. We can imagine the disastrous consequences on their living standards if four members of the same family, all working at Plessey, find themselves without employment. We have to find out where the blames lies. I was abroad last week and heard the story of the closure then, but a Plessey director at the conference that I was attending was able to give me some more information.
I have read newspaper reports stating that the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), said during Questions that he had received some undertakings from the Post Office about forward ordering. I want to find out whether that is true. I do not doubt my right hon. Friend's word, but if what he said is a fact and there has been a drastic change of direction in Post Office ordering, the House should know something about this because time is of the essence. Our unemployment rate in the area is already 13.5 per cent. male unemployed. Perhaps we shall be able to look at the problem better in 12 or 18 months' time. We should have a period in which we can consider redeployment of the staff and carry out an examination to see what is wrong with the organisation of Plessey or the Post Office.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for announcing that

there is to be an inquiry under Professor Posner, but, as my right hon. Friend for Sunderland, North has said, we have seen these inquiries before but nothing seems to come from them. It is nice to be promised that the Manpower Services Commission will move in and that we shall have the fullest possible inquiry into alternative job opportunities. We already have quite a number of empty factories, and with an unemployment rate of 13·5 per cent. we are looking for jobs to fill those factories. We just cannot produce the extra 2,000 jobs that are needed. There is no way in which these people can be employed except by the continuation of the Plessey factories which must be kept open.
This is a matter of some urgency which should be examined not by Professor Posner and his staff but by the Central Policy Review Staff. It must get down to examining why a nationalised industry is at fault, if it is at fault, and how a large corporation which is responsible for the livelihoods of so many of our people can fall down so badly and drop this bombshell at this time.
I suggest, therefore, that the matter should be referred to the CPRS. That is an urgent requirement. Secondly, the Government must step in to maintain this factory. They must find money to do that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that it might cost £2 million or £3 million. I do not know what the cost will be, but the money must be spent to give us the breathing space we need. We cannot possibly accept the 90-day redundancy notice and watch the gradual closing of the factory. We must know the full facts of the situation before that is allowed to happen.
Let us have a full and urgent inquiry by a major body which has the power to act. Further, we have to examine why Plessey's export performance has been so deplorably poor. This factory has an immense turnover, but only 10 per cent. of that turnover goes for export. That seems to indicate that this major company has been cruising along comfortably on a home order policy from the Post Office, and that is not good enough.
We are aware that the equipment made by the Sunderland factory is out of date, but that is not the fault of the people who work there. There should have been


a gradual moving over to the production of sophisticated equipment with a more realistic attack on world markets. It gives us no joy to see countries such as Saudi Arabia placing orders for telecommunications equipment in Japan and elsewhere. The recommendation of Sir Raymond Brown of NEDO last year that a telecommunications export order body should be set up and should be considered a matter of urgency, although I realise that this will not save our factory.
The trade union representatives said at the meeting this morning that life was tough, that they know that Plessey has problems and that the demand for equipment is probably low. But their point is that not all the weight should be allowed to fall on Sunderland. A great deal of sub-contracting work has been spread throughout the country because Plessey has been unable to handle it. Some of that work should be brought back to Sunderland. I realise that this could affect factories and sub-contractors elsewhere in the country, but such a move would soften the blow for a town which already feels that it has been tremendously hammered.
The message I bring from the meeting this morning is clear. Tomorrow we shall be meeting my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Employment, with a representative group from the North of England Development Council, from the trade union leaders, from the councils, from Members of Parliament, and from the work people in the factory. We have to decide what should be done about this matter in the first instance, but the underlying aim is to point out that in no way can we accept this savage closure if it is possible for the Government to intervene.
I have mentioned three important points which must be tackled—Government help, the bringing in of the CPRS and the export potential of Plessey. If we can succeed in these points, not only will it do this factory good, it will do the whole industry good. It would give us a year or 18 months in which to retool, rejig and retrain in order to keep the work force occupied.
I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is actively interested in Post Office matters. He will be interested to
 
hear that over the weekend, with the Post Office announcement of a ½p increase in postage rates to boost a collective overall profit of some £400 million, the people in the North-East have been spurred on to a mood of anger. They have been lashing out angrily and demanding to know whether the Post Office is just a publicly-owned piece of capitalism which has to make as much profit as it can or whether it is supposed to look after the people who work in the industry.

4.56 p.m.

Mr. Erie Ogden: You will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I usually obey the injunctions of the Chair by trying to keep my remarks to 10 or 15 minutes. If today I exceed that time, it will not be to catch up on the time taken by my hon. Friends from North-East England but a recognition of the importance of this debate.
There are no differences between hon. Members from the North-East and those from the North-West on this subject. There are no differences between the workers in Plessey factories on Merseyside and those in Plessey factories in the North-East. We are not fighting each other for a larger share of a smaller cake. This is an occasion on which we each give our own experience and put forward the case of the factories and the people in our own constituencies.
We are, however, engaged in a parallel endeavour. The meeting of Merseyside Members last Thursday was not an attempt to steal a march on anyone from the North-East. Only an extreme optimist would try to do such a thing. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) said that Merseyside had done rather better than the North East from the Temporary Employment Subsidy. He gave the amounts at £10 million for the North-East to £48 million for Merseyside.
Yet on Merseyside I am constantly told that if only I made as much noise about things as the North-East Members do, Merseyside might do better. My hon. Friends from the North-East therefore are envied on Merseyside, and no doubt I am envied in the North-East—that is the way of things. We have a common cause for concern, about the employment of those who work in our respective areas. There are no differences between the two


sides of the House on the subject. This is not a party political matter.
We have to link our debate with particular parts of the Estimates for 1976–71. To show, therefore, that my comments are relevant, I refer the House to page 128 of the Supply Estimates, 1976–77 Class IV, 15 under the description
expenditure by the Department of Employment on grants in aid to the Manpower Service Commission".
I was surprised to see there the sum of £410 million, which is an increase this year of more than £1 million. I refer also to page 84, Class IV, 3 Section B under the heading,
Industrial Research and Development Contracts",
because the telecommunications industry depends very much on research and development.
I take also Class XIV, on telecommunications, and also the section which refers to overseas aid. A great deal of overseas aid ought to be in the form of overseas trade. These are the four sections which I hope will make absolutely certain that my remarks are relevant to the Bill.
The Plessey company is a major electronic engineering company. The Financial Times recently reported:
Electronics group Plessey is still holding up well to the sharp drop in telecommunication orders from the Post Office. In its third quarter, the group lifted overseas sales to more than half the total. Profits rose from £8,013,000 to £9,650,000, bringing the nine-monthly tally to £27.99 million against £25.02 million.
Plessey is relatively successful, but not wholly so—at least holding its own abroad, although the company has been less successful at home.
On 14th February this year a delegation from Plessey Telecommunications came here to tell their Members of Parliament from the North-East and the North-West of their complaints, fears, anxieties and anger at the threats of enforced redundancies and unemployment in the near future. These were skilled workers, trade unionists, who wanted to continue to work. Members responded in their own way. There was a series of meetings with Ministers. My hon. Friends in industry and employment have been most anxious, careful and diligent in making sure that

communications were constant all the way. They know of the continuing discussions and our real concern.
One unique aspect of the Plessey company on Merseyside, compared with any other company there, is that Plessey is the one major company which has never, in the 12 years during which I have been a Member made any attempt to interest local Members of Parliament of all parties in the management of the company, their problems, and hopes. So far as Plessey was concerned, we did not exist. Every other company on Merseyside—Ford, Lever Brothers, Cammell Laird, GEC, United Biscuits, Ogden's Tobacco, whose interest is understandable, Fisher-Bendix, Standard-Triumph, Royal Liver Insurance and Royal Insurance and many other companies large and small have kept close contact with their Members, not only when there was a crisis but to keep us informed of progress, to report and to involve us in their affairs. They had an interest in us and we in them. Their purpose was to continue working and our purpose was to help them to do so. Not Plessey, Liverpool.
Others may have had a different experience in other parts of the country, but this is my complaint. I did not complain too much. After all, there is more than enough work for any MP in the area. I assumed that if we did not hear from the company this was because the company did not need us, and we wished it good luck. Experience showed us otherwise.
The unions at Plessey were not much better. During the Thorn Ericson dispute a delegation came to visit us in November 1976 and again on 14th February, but we did not have the closest possible contracts which ought to exist. After 14th February there was an attempt to have a meeting, but it was not possible in the time available. Then, on 2nd March, I received my first-ever letter from the Plessey management, local or national. The letter, from Mr. M. E. Glynn, Managing Director, Public Telecommunications Systems, I presume went to every MP in Sunderland and on Merseyside. It said:
It is with great regret that I have to advise you of the decisions forced on us by the continuing falls in changing Post Office ordering programmes. The situation is summarised


in the Company's public announcement, issued tonight, and I thought you would wish to have the attached copy without delay.
Obviously, this matter is the subject of consultation with the Trade Unions concerned but should you wish to discuss any questions arising, perhaps you would contact my office so that a meeting may be arranged.
To be fair to the Plessey company, that was appreciated.
It is important that we get on record what the company said to its Members of Parliament in a public statement. Released on 2nd March, 1977 and headed
Post Office Cuts Force Redundancies in Plessey Telecommunications ",
it said:
The cumulative effects of Post Office cuts since 1974 will cause a net reduction of about 4,000 jobs and some factory closures in the electromechanical systems sector of Plessey Telecommunications, it was announced tonight.
The Company is issuing formal consultation notices, under the Employment Protection Act, covering a total of about 4,800 jobs but it is expected that by retraining and redeployment there will be new job opportunities for about 800 of the people affected in growth product areas, such as TXE4, Pentex and System X.
Tonight, the Company's management presented the facts to representatives of the Trade Unions concerned at national, regional and local meetings.
There was more, and I am sure that my hon. Friend and other hon. Members will have copies of that statement.
The Plessey company has known about continuing problems for some time, but it has now said to its workers, "These are the problems, this is the solution. How will you help to work out the details?", instead of telling the workers months and years ago that the company was going to have difficulties, how the company saw future programmes, and how it would have to change and organise. In other words, the people who work in the factory should have had the opportunity of providing other solutions at other times. But the decision was announced and the only opportunity the workers have is to object or to sit-in as is being done in Kirkby because they want to keep on working. The company allow only minimal changes in the closures now imposed.
The whole attitude of the Plessey company, public and private, to Members or its own workers is to say " These are the problems, and these are the solutions. The fault, the responsibility, is entirely
that of the Government and the Post Office." The company says that this is where the responsibility for the difficulties lies. Plessey blames the Post Office and then the Government cuts.
It is not as simple as that. The Post Office and the Government have some responsibility, but the main responsibility for the management of its own affairs and its failure to manage them lies with Plessey. It is time that Plessey accepted at least a major share of the responsibility instead of trying to push the blame on to the Post Office and the Government.
My hon. Friend will also have the views of the Post Office Engineering Union, which were put on the record some time ago. That union seems to be taking a more responsible attitude. Everyone ought to base comments and proposals on facts, not assumptions. I am not the most avid reader of The Sunday Times. I often complain about my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House always quoting it and The Times. The number of people in my constituency who read them is minimal. Their influence in West Derby is not too great. More of my constituents read the Daily Mirror and the Liverpool Echo.
In The Times last week there was a letter from Mr. Peter Rodgers, who set out a balanced idea of what the Post Office was doing. One of my hon. Friends referred to the £400 million profit that the Post Office had made. In that paper this neutral observer said:
The much-maligned Post Office offers some of the best telephone bargains in Western Europe and has an extremely well-organised tariff structure. This remarkable conclusion emerges from what is claimed to be the first full survey of European telephone charges and services.
Your total telephone bill here is about average for Western Europe, but the Post Office does more than anybody else to promote cheap offpeak calls, at anything from an eighth to a half of the levels in most other European countries.
International calls from Britain are also among the cheapest in Europe, on and off-peak, and the PO is the only telephone company to offer a proper system of cheap off-peak rates for international calls.
Rental and connection charges do not look quite so bad when compared with the rest of Europe. Only Belgium, Luxembourg and Portgual charge substantially less for connection, and Denmark charges nearly three times as much. (This does however hide the fact


that subscribers a long way from an exchange can be heavily penalised in Britain, unlike most other countries.)
Again, monthly rental charges are about average for Europe, with some countries considerably more expensive—West Germany charges two-and-a-half times as much.
The survey, by the London-based computer and management consultants Logica.
That was not a survey commissioned by the Post Office.
There have been comments about changes in Post Office charges for letters. In the Sunday Times, which is a useful newspaper to read, even if only occasionally, there was a front-page report this week headed
Are we really so badly off?
It compared costs in terms of working time compared with 25 years ago. Iii 1950 it required 21 minutes of the average worker's time—if there is such a thing as the average worker—to pay for the postage of five letters. Nineteen minutes are now required.
It is easy to talk about the Post Office using some of its £400 million profit to help prevent unemployment in Plessey. I went to the Post Office telecommunications headquarters at No. 2 Gresham Street this afternoon, when it was confirmed that there would be 400,000 business connections this year and 1 million domestic connections. The Post Office plans a programme of 1,100,000 domestic connections next year, a record level. There are 40,000 on the waiting list, and the Post Office recognises that that number should take two months to deal with at the most. It is proposing to do all it can, so the suggestion that a drastic reduction in installation charges and othet telephone costs would have a dramatic effect on the immediate position of Plessey, or even the position over the next 12 months, is open to doubt. I think that there is room for adjustments, but they would have a marginal effect at most.
My hon. Friends from the North-East have said that 60 per cent. to 70 per cent. of the telecommunications orders for Plessey, GEC and Standard Telephones come from the captive home market. The Post Office places hundreds of millions of pounds-worth of orders with those three companies each year. It is also providing GEC, Standard Telephones and

Plessey with £65 million investment in research and development for System X, which is the real growth area for the years ahead. That investment is one of the best examples I know of co-operation between Government and private enterprise.
I understand that on the electrical-mechanical engineering side the present versions of the Strowger and crossbar systems began before the 1940s. Research and development on the new systems is not a matter of turning something on this year and having the results coming out of the pipeline next year. These are long-term programmes. Plessey has invested a large amount in the TXE4 electronic systems, a great deal of the work going to Huyton. I do not know the full significance of that, but it is a fact that while the company neglected the older part of Merseyside it poured a great deal of money into the newer TXE4 work, which has not been affected to any appreciable degree by the Post Office cuts. System X and TXE4 are the growth areas for the future.
The Post Office tells me that it has six years supplies of the older type of equipment being made at present by the Plessey company. It normally holds three years' supplies, and its present holding is twice its normal reserve. Since November the Post Office management and Ministers have met and met again to talk about the continuing programme. There are times when politicians are not very popular. I think that most of us have stopped hoping that we ever would be popular. In some ways the Post Office is in the same position. If it is regarded as a public service, there are newspaper headlines if it makes a loss. If we then tell it, as Parliament did, "It's your job to act as a commercial organisation, to raise your own capital, to create money for your own investment", we complain if it will not act as another means of rescuing private enterprise. Therefore the Post Office knows that it will not win. But it does not matter who gets the credit or the blame so long as we get something done.
The Government have been pressing the Post Office since long before last November to look at its ordering programme. If it does give help, is it to come out of the £400 million profit this year? We do not refer to the last


year or the year before. I believe that Post Office capital equipment is worth £1,000 million. All that capital investment produced a profit last year of £400 million. The Post Office would do better to sell up and put the money in the Post Office Savings Bank, where it would have a better return on investment.
Changes could be made in the Post Office sales policy. These would have a useful short-term effect, but it would be only marginal. Someone told me at my advice bureau last Saturday "I want to put in a telephone for my mother, a widow who lives on her own. I could manage it if it cost £20 or £25, but at £40 or £50 it is more than I can reasonably provide" Perhaps there could be lower charges for some connections that are socially desirable.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said last week that under the Employment Protection Act there was a 90-day delay in making the workers redundant. I believe that during that period something can be done, though it is not a great deal of time. The present position should have been planned for six years ago, and could have been foreseen nine years ago. In the Labour programme for 1973 it was proposed that in such circumstances, rather than wait for a concern to go bankrupt and an official trustee in bankruptcy to be brought in to dispose of the assets, the Government should be able to appoint an official trustee who would be able to keep the situation as it was. All the options would be kept open so that there would be a viable operational unit still in existence while talks continued. My workers in Kirkby are holding on to the factory and carrying on production in the hope that during the 90 days something will be achieved.
Anyone who thinks that the British Medical Association representatives are tough negotiators has not yet met Plessey representatives. There must be co-operation between Plessey and the Government, but the Government must also involve GEC and STC. I do not want another debate such as this in six months' or a year's time about GEC Telecommunications or STC. They must be brought in now. Temporary employment subsidy must be offered, and strong pressure must be put on the company to

accept. The company has nothing to lose and everything to gain.
If it is a matter of tax concessions in the Budget or of some of the money being used for the maintenance of employment, I should have no difficulty in arguing with my workers on Merseyside that employment for others must come first. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will have a word with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development. Overseas aid has been flowing back from Egypt to GEC on Merseyside, which has been supplying pole-mounted transformers. That is a good example of taxpayers' money doing a good job in Egypt, right where it is needed, in the village—not for the massive Kariba Dam but following through from that—and coming back to Merseyside to create more employment there.
The Manpower Services Commission is also important, as is the advance factory programme, although it is a tragic irony that alongside the Plessey factory at Garston, which the company proposes to close down, the Government are building an advance factory. The idea is to provide sub-contracting work on Merseyside. The Government have the right to complain that Plessey failed to provide them with any advance information on this matter.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend knows about the unemployment situation on Merseyside. I need not go into detail. If the three parties concerned accept their share of responsibility and are prepared to work together, then I think that within the 90 days available to us, there is some hope of a solution. All we are asking for, whether on Merseyside or in the North-East, is the opportunity to work.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Ivan Evans: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey) and others of my hon. Friends from the North-East and Merseyside on raising this subject today. The debate has ranged to a large extent on the problem of Plessey in Sunderland and in Kirkby, but it raises the important need for the Government to make additional provision for dealing


with unemployment and redundancies following the closure of local factories generally.
Most hon. Members will have had experience of the closures of local factories. We should realise that unemployment in any area affects employment prospects throughout Britain. We in South Wales have plenty of experience of unemployment over the years. It is not good to hear of any factory closing anywhere.
When a factory closes, it tends to have a cumulative effect on other industries. I thought that I knew the circumstances of all local factories in Aberdare and Mountain Ash, but I was surprised to discover that, had British Leyland collapsed, it would have had a serious effect on a number of component manufacturers in my constituency. People tend to think that the British Leyland problem affects 200,000 workers primarily in the Midlands. In fact, it has a major effect on 1 million people throughout Britain, many thousands of whom are in my constituency. Therefore, I hope that the difficulties facing British Leyland will soon be overcome.
Last week it was announced that British Leyland production was 30 per cent. up this January compared with January last year. There was a substantial improvement in the company during that period. I hope that the difficulties can be resolved. If British Leyland fails, the effect on British industry and on component manu. facturers in particular will be tremendous.
The debate has centred on the recent development at Plessey. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) said that other companies supplying the Post Office could also be affected. For example, Standard Telephones and Cables and GEC supply equipment to the Post Office. Representatives of the Post Office Engineering Union have lobbied Welsh Members on this matter.
Mention has been made of the profit of £400 million made by the Post Office last year because of increased efficiency. I suggest that there should be some new thinking on industrial strategy. We tend to have a situation in industry of all go or all stop. The Post Office having made a profit of £400 million, I suggest that the Government should encourage it to go

ahead with the installation of telephones. There are many skilled workers in the telecommunications industry and many people are waiting for telephones to be installed. Therefore, the Government should, at a time of recession, encourage the Post Office to meet all the demands being made for the installation of telephones in houses, offices and factories. They should say to the Post Office "We wish you to plough some of this surplus profit into encouraging demand for telecommunications equipment rather than cutting back".
There is a danger of over-simplifying the problem. We get demands for cuts in public expenditure. Industry is being encouraged to cut back. I believe that at a time of world recession we should call on industry to involve itself in increasing public expenditure if it results in more employment opportunities.
When we get out of the present recession, manufacturing industry will be calling out for skilled workers and it will not be easy to get them. Therefore, during a downturn we should plan to encourage the public sectors, especially those involved in manufacturing, to expand.
The Post Office has considered moving into manufacturing. It is strange that it has been prevented from manufacturing its own equipment. The Under-Secretary of State is knowledgeable on these matters because, in another context, he has close contact with the Post Office Engineering Union. If there is no other way out of the problem, the Government should seriously consider extending public ownership in this area to maintain jobs.
I am glad that this important issue is being discussed early in our proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Unemployment is the major problem facing the Government. I know that many suggestions have been and are being made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding what he should do in his Budget. I hope that the main emphasis in the Budget will be to try to get this country back to full employment.
Last year my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) introduced the Industrial Common Ownership Bill, which was supported by the Government and the Opposition. That measure gives powers to afford assistance in the formation of workers' co-operatives. That measure may not be applicable to large


industries, but it provides for assistance to be in cases where workers are willing to take over the management of small factories. In many instances the factories concerned have good order books and are efficient. Their problems are the result of the financial set-up of the organisations to which they belong getting into difficulties. Therefore, we should have machinery available to encourage the formation of workers' co-operatives.
I hope that the Government will consider setting up a co-operative development agency which, with the National Enterprise Board and other development agencies, could play an, important part in keeping local industries going.
We are concerned with additional provision to deal with unemployment and redundancies. We must seek, in a more positive way, to prevent unemployment and redundancies. The Government are taking many measures and have a catalogue of various things that they have done to encourage industry but I hope that they will look again at the regional employment premium which has played an important part in encouraging manufacturing industries to move into needy areas.

5.30 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), and my hon. Friends the Members for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Urwin), Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans) have spoken eloquently and with great feeling. I need hardly say how distressed the Government were to learn of the declarations of the Plessey redundancies in Sunderland, affecting 2,088 workers and at Kirkby, Speke and Edge Lane, Liverpool, affecting 1,278 workers, because of the massive unemployment in those areas. We know the great hardship that this will mean for many families and the blow that it will be to the pride of the individuals concerned.
My mind goes back to the visit that I made to Plessey in Liverpool before 1974 when that company was campaigning against the possibility of further modernisation by the Post Office. The company specifically said that it had invited me to the factory to see the girls

and other workers who would be made redundant if the modernisation programme took place. I have a picture of those girls and other workers in my mind when I speak this afternoon.
I shall clarify the situation from the Government point of view. But before doing that I shall restate the case which Plessey has made and which is supported to some extent by the workers in the Plessey concerns. In a letter to workers and unions about the proposed redundancies within the customer service and installation division the company stated:
Following the successive cuts by the Post Office in its requirements, it has been necessary for this Company as a major Post Office supplier to examine critically their cumulative effects on its present and future position. Particularly this is because cuts have fallen most heavily upon the labour intensive electromechanical type of equipment which currently forms a substantial proportion of our total output which will become obsolete progressively over the next few years.
The rapid decline in requirements for electro-mechanical switching equipment, the installation of which is labour intensive, is occurring at the same time as a change to electronic and semi-electronic equipment, the installation of which has a lower labour requirement.
As a consequence of the reduction in ordering levels and the change in technology, the present levels of employment in the installation division cannot be maintained. It is therefore proposed that redundancies be effected to reduce the work force to a size consistent with the level of demand existing.
In the company's letter to all district officials, staff and hourly-paid workers involved in manufacturing, the company stressed:
The rapid decline in demand for such equipment is a reflection of increasing requirements (including overseas) for electronic equipment, the production of which has a considerably lower labour requirement.
It goes on: 
As a consequence of the successive volume cuts and the changes in mix requirements by the Post Office and the changes in overseas demand, it is apparent that the level of employment, and production activity, both in terms of numbers and locations within the Company is higher than can be sustained. In this situation, with the greatest reluctance, the Company must now propose substantial redundancies (including some factory closures) in order to reduce the total work force to a figure which is consistent with the market demand as it now exists and is likely to continue for the foreseeable future; and also to enable the Company to concentrate upon the newer technology and thereby safeguard the position of the work force which will remain.


In its PR handout Plessey, while not mentioning to the Press the fall in export orders, says that it is the cumulative effects of Post Office cuts since 1974 that will cause a net reduction of about 4,000 jobs and some factory closures in the electromechanical systems sector of Plessey Telecommunications.

Mr. Urwin: My hon. Friend has said something which is important about the developing situation and the development of new techniques. Has Plessey said anything to the Government about its intention to develop new techniques in Sunderland or in Liverpool?

Mr. Golding: I was impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring. I am sure that he will wait for me to reach the point where I make it clear that developments are taking place. Those are in Liverpool, but I am not aware of any such developments in Sunderland. However, I shall come to that later.
The company in their Press handout went on to say:
A reduction in resources is now essential, due to continually changing Post Office ordering programmes, the most important effects of which are: 

1. The excessively rapid transition from electromechanical to electronic systems, which has effectively been brought forward by about four years against the Post Office Modernisation Plan.
2. Projected orders for a number of major projects, including a further Crossbar International Switching Centre and additions to the Whitehall Private Crossbar Exchange complex, have been postponed.
3. The Post Office announcement of further cuts last November aggravated an already serious forward situation. Even if the November 1976 cuts are restored there will be no benefit to the industry for at least 12 months."

I put the Plessey point of view at length because I want to answer some of the allegations that are being made by the management and by others. First, let me make is absolutely clear that the present situation does not arise from Government cuts in public expenditure. Post Office telecommunications expenditure slightly increased from £916 million in 1975–76 to £917 million this year. The Government have not cut back in real terms in telecommunications investment since the Conservative cuts late in 1973 which were restored to the levels required by the Post

Office after the February 1974 election. The Post Office has cut investment only to respond to reduced needs for equipment. There have been no Government-imposed cuts. The Post Office has reduced telecommunications investment only when the demand has been lacking for equipment.
Incidentally, those who refer to the size of the telecommunications surplus must understand that it is entirely swallowed up to meet some of the cost of the investment. Hon. Members who refer to sums of £150 million, £300 million or £400 million profit must appreciate that on telecommunications alone, £916 million was invested last year. Those are the vast sums with which we are dealing in telecommunications.
There have been some problems in the past because of the delays on the part of British manufacturers in delivering equipment on time, and problems because Plessey, for example, has been unable to supply modern equipment that is much needed, and the Post Office has been forced, and is being forced, to go abroad to purchase that equipment. Overall, however, the ordering programme has increased year by year.
The present problems stem, first, from the inability to sell out-of-date equipment abroad. They stem, secondly, from the decision to develop a modern semi-electronic system in place of outdated electro-mechanical systems, a development from which Plessey withdrew at an early stage before it achieved ultimate success, a success which led to the endorsement and support—rightly, in my view—of the right hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) in 1973 when he was Minister of Posts and Telecommunications. I supported him then, because he was right to give that endorsement. It was later endorsed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson).
Thirdly, the present problems stem from the reduction in orders when demand fell not only because of the recession but as a consequence of tariff increases which followed the ending of the massive subsidies being paid from taxpayers' money to the potentially profitable Post Office telecommunications. Again, I certainly supported the ending of massive State subsidies, from taxpayers' money, to Post Office telecommunications.
Fourthly, the ironing out of telephone traffic over the day by means of a varying call charge also reduced the amount of new equipment needed, as it avoided a situation in which a lot of expensive equipment was required to meet rush hour demand for as little as an hour or two hours a day.
Fifthly, the latest ordering cuts are the result of computer studies which have given the Post Office a measure of actual traffic flows. The Post Office has been able to measure them more accurately than hitherto, and to match capacity to them, exchange by exchange. These studies have shown a large measure of spare capacity.
Quite clearly, the problem is that the Post Office wants to modernise the system. This is absolutely essential if it is to provide the quality of service that our people want. Certainly Post Office users cannot expect to receive good service from the use of out-of-date equipment. If Britain continues to build up an obsolescent system, it has no chance to improve on a poor telecommunications exchange equipment export record. There will not be orders from abroad in the years to come if the British telephone system has not itself an international reputation for being relatively fault-free, easy to maintain and providing the necessary range of services called for by telephone users, particularly businessmen, throughout the world.
I want to emphasise this point very strongly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North made a very good speech, but I disagreed with him when he supported the manufacturers' view that chopping and changing of Post Office orders has led to the loss of exports. The loss of exports has followed from continuing to produce out-of-date equipment and stems basically from the failure of a joint venture between the Post Office and manufacturers in the 1960s, when they tried to go directly from a simple Strowger electro-mechanical system to an advanced electronic system. Sadly, the experimental exchange at Highgate Wood failed, and it left Britain without exportable telecommunications switching equipment. That is why we do not have the orders.
However, when I have spoken to people abroad, they have made it

absolutely clear that they will come to Britain to discuss the purchase of British equipment when they get the impression, once again, that the British internal telecommunications system is providing for its own customers the wide range of services that modern equipment can provide. I do not think that we have any hope in the export market until we produce a modern British telecommunications system, and we cannot do that through the continued installation of obsolescent equipment.

Mr. Wiley: I was making the very simple point that the major supplies are in the domestic market and that this determines the production of the companies, and that is where the fault has been. What my hon. Friend is saying confirms that. There has been a bad ordering policy over the past years and it is reflecting itself now in the inability of companies to meet an export demand because other countries have progressed over us.

Mr. Golding: I apologise to my right hon. Friend if I misunderstood him. It has certainly enabled me to stray from my brief and to speak with some degree of feeling on this subject.
Certainly the Post Office has also faced the discovery that it does not need to instal as many switches as it once thought would be necessary to carry the traffic. If it were to buy this unneeded exchange equipment, the cost would fall on either existing telephone users or the taxpayer. The Post Office does not feel justified in doing this. Rather, it aims for a relatively cheaper and more efficient telephone system, less dependent than at present on borrowing from the Exchequer —because Exchequer money is only taxpayers' money.
But, of course, the Post Office estimates could be wrong. That is why my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, following representations from both sides of the telecommunications equipment industry, announced that Mr. Michael Posner, of Cambridge University, had been appointed to consider the assessment that led the Post Office in November 1976 to reduce the future levels of orders for telephone exchange equipment and to report. He will be seeking the views of unions and manufacturing industry and will report as soon as practicable—not that I


would want Plessey workers to pin too much hope on this, because the company has made it clear that the restoration of these orders would have no effect for 12 months in any case.
Even the Post Office estimates are correct, there are further steps it could take. It could reduce connection charges in order to encourage more people to have telephones, and the Department of Industry will ask the Post Office to consider this once again. I emphasise connection charges because although I would not want to prejudge the result of any discussions, it could be that reducing rentals and call charges, while being of little help in increasing demand for equipment, could place an enormous burden on the taxpayer if it were necessary to make good any losses.
Many people outside the Post Office think that the Corporation could conduct more vigorous marketing campaigns. Some of my hon. Friends have suggested this—wisely, I believe—in the debate today. The Government are prepared to back such initiatives, and I understand that the Post Office is discussing this with those who would be affected by it.
Sadly, however, these measures will not solve the problem within the 90 days' notice that Plessey has had to give under the Employment Protection Act. I wonder how much notice would have been given had we not passed that Act.

Mr. Ogden: My hon. Friend has no need to wonder. The majority of workers would have had one week's notice and then the jobs would have gone for ever.

Mr. Golding: We would have liked to see a much longer notice given than the statutory minimum with redundancies of this size. When the Secretary of State for Employment learned of the prospect of redundancies and that private manufacturing companies had mainly developed much of their work, which had a future, outside Liverpool and Sunderland in the non-assisted areas—Huyton is an exception—he was most disturbed. He decided that this might provide the occasion for the first major jobs initiative by the Manpower Services Commission. Unfortunately, the problem has been that since the autumn the firms concerned have not been prepared to concede that they would be affected by redundancies. In these

circumstances it was useless to mount an initiative without the agreement of management and unions at the plants concerned.

Mr. Bagier: Is my hon. Friend saying that the companies at that time—and they must have had some knowledge of what was going on—refused to cooperate with the Manpower Services Commission in order to see what could be done? This is the burden of our remarks—Plessey made its announcement suddenly, without any consultation of any substance at all.

Mr. Golding: My understanding of the situation is that when we knew within the Department of Employment that because of technological changes and changes in Post Office expectations, this problem would arise, the Secretary of State asked the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission to examine whether this was the right occasion for the first major jobs initiative on the part of the Commission. Of course the Chairman was only too pleased to help. But when the MSC tried to discuss this with the firms concerned it appears that they buried their hands in the sand and no real discussions could take place. The companies failed to recognise that this situation was imcminent. Certainly the Government took an initiative and the Manpower Services Commission took an initiative months ago, but the response was not there.

Mr. James Prior: The lion. Gentleman said that the Post Office made its decision in October or November, and reduced its amount of ordering. Presumably from then the Government knew the sort of situation which was likely to arise, and which is now occurring. Is he saying that from then on the Department engaged on a survey to see what could be done through the Manpower Services Commission but the firms concerned refused to co-operate?

Mr. Golding: I will be absolutely precise and say what actually happened. The situation has not arisen merely because of the reduction in November. I have spelt that out very clearly. The situation has built up over the years ever since the decision of the last Conservative Administration—a decision which I supported—to go ahead with the TXE 4. The
situation was aggravated by the discovery of the Post Office that it had spare capacity in switching, and therefore it would need to reduce ordering levels yet again in December. In December the Secretary of State was very disturbed to learn of the possible redundancies. Of course we could only know the overall effect of the decision in terms of jobs. We could not know in which locations and at which plants these redundancies would be declared.
Given the level of ordering, it was for the companies to determine in which plants the redundancies should occur. It was for the companies to determine whether redundancies should be shared out equally over the country or whether they should shut plants at Liverpool and Sunderland. From the departmental point of view, all we could know was that there was a serious problem. We acted immediately and asked the Manpower Services Commission to mount a jobs initiative. My understanding is—and I think I am right, but if I am not I will let the right hon. Member know--that the chairman involved officers of the Commission in talks with each of the companies concerned. But the companies were reluctant to say where the redundancies would occur; in fact, they were reluctant to admit that their companies would suffer the brunt of the loss of orders. In a sense, the companies put off the evil day and that meant that the job initiative could not take place.
We regret this situation very much indeed. We are hoping that the same will not occur in the case of Standard and GEC-AEI. If there are to be redundancies in these companies, we hope that we shall have more time to deal with them.
In the public relations handout, Plessey said that it would call in the Manpower Services Commission. I hope that the unions will assist the Commission in this terrible situation, because to date the unions too have not helped the Commission to deal with the redundancies. We hope that they will in the future.
The job initiative scheme, to be properly effective would have taken 18 months—

Mr. Urwin: I am a little puzzled by my hon. Friend's reference to the unco-

operativeness of the unions. After all, only five days have elapsed since the notices were issued and the decision was announced. My impression, and that of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend from Sunderland, is the reverse. It is that the management has been difficult over meeting the unions. I am not aware that at any time since last Wednesday, or prior to that, there have been difficulties on the union side about the proposed redundancies. I repeat that the decision was not known until last Wednesday.

Mr. Golding: I stand corrected on the point of view held by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring about Sunderland, but I think that there have been difficulties in this connection, certainly on Merseyside. The reaction has been there. They have not wanted to accept the inevitability of the redundancies.

Mr. Urwin: There is no sit-in in Sunderland.

Mr. Ogden: The major objection of my hon. Friends is that they are concerned about even one person becoming unemployed. They are concerned, too, that redundancy means that jobs will for ever leave Merseyside. A job declared redundant is a job lost. Nobody can come in and take it over, and the total number of jobs available in the area is reduced. There is a real fear that once there is talk about redundancies it means that one accepts sackings and that jobs go for ever. That is the reason for the resistance and reluctance on Merseyside.

Mr. Golding: I understand that, and if I were on the shop floor I should be fighting hard and saying hard things about everybody in authority, but we hope that the unions will assist the Manpower Services Commission to deal with these terrible redundancies.
The Plessey proposals cannot be dealt with by way of a job initiative, because of the time factor. Joint teams from the Employment Services Agency and the Training Services Agency will go into the Plessey factories to discuss what help can be given, and particular attention will be paid by the Training Services Agency to the possibility of using some of the firm's facilities for training purposes.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby mentioned the public trustee. My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer), the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Industry, on hearing what my hon. Friend had to say assured me that the Department was giving, and would continue to give, careful consideration to the points that had been made.
My hon. Friend also asked about overseas aid and the use of it to boost our exports, as it were. I shall draw his comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development.
The Manpower Services Commission will do all that it can within the plants if it is allowed to do so. In the localities also, particularly Liverpool and Sunderland, the Government and the MSC will seek to alleviate what is a desperate situation. Both Merseyside and Wear-side have been designated special development areas, which means that industries are offered a full range of incentives to relocate or to expand there; for example, regional development grants, selective financial assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act, and Government factories. Talking of selective assistance, the House may like to know that the £4½ million loans and grants offered to Merseyside during the last two years could provide about 3,800 new jobs. On Wearside, in 1975–76 offers of assistance amounting to nearly £500,000 were given, and that is estimated to involve 1,000 new jobs.

Mr. Wiley: My hon. Friend will remember that I said that we already had seven empty factories? Seven more are to be built, but that will not deal with the problem that we are facing.

Mr. Golding: I appreciate that, and I realise that we have to do everything possible to provide jobs in those factories. But it is better to have factories and try to provide jobs in them than not to have the factories and therefore be unable to try to get the jobs. The Government will do what they can for Wearside.

Mr. Bagier: I appreciate my hon. Friend's difficulty, because of the situation, but the burden of our message is that we do not want these Plessey factories to close. We have suggested several

ways in which the Government can deal with the situation. With respect to my hon. Friend, we are aware of all the opportunities that are available to us as a special development area, but the fact is that we now have a 13½ per cent. rate of male unemployment. Every lost job is a disaster for the individual. The burden of our argument is that we do not want 2,088 people added to the present unemployment figure. The only way in which something can be done is not through my hon. Friend's good offices, certainly not in the short term, but by my mounting a rescue operation of some sort to keep these factories open. That is what we want to hear.

Mr. Golding: I shall be up and down like Punch and Judy and be told what I should say before I say it, but I shall do my best. The men from the North-East are very rough.

Mr. Urwin: Not at all.

Mr. Robert Adley: They are Punch, and the hon. Gentleman is Judy.

Mr. Golding: If I were in the place of my hon. Friends I should be punching as hard at any Judy standing at this Dispatch Box.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 3rd March that he had asked the National Enterprise Board, which has a regional director in both the North-West and the North-East, to investigate the investment potential in both areas and to report to the Government on what can be done to offset the disastrous consequences of the Plessey closures. In that sense, the Prime Minister and the Government are determined that we take a close look at what can be done in practical terms to offset the disaster of these closures. My Department is determined to do all that it can to assist.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North made a specific request about the temporary employment subsidy.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is still the possibility of a rescue operation for the factories which it is proposed to close M. the North-East and on


Merseyside. Or is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government's action is concerned only with trying to do something to mitigate the disasters that will follow when those factories have closed? In honesty to the men, the women and the families concerned, no false hopes should be held out as a result of the Minister's not using clear language. Is there a hope of a rescue operation, or is the only action that the Government, the Manpower Services Commission and others are likely to take one that will help to deal with the disastrous unemployment situation in those regions?

Mr. Golding: Under our system of private enterprise, that depends largely on Plessey. I wanted to come to the question of the temporary employment subsidy. Plessey has given 90 days' notice of redundancies. The Government in turn have drawn the company's attention to the temporary employment subsidy, which could give 12 months' grace. So far, Plessey has said that it is not interested.
Bluntly—I have said this publicly on television—I do not think that there is any chance of those factories continuing to produce out-of-date equipment which is not required, but the Government would very much like the situation to arise where Plessey could find another product to produce in that factory. If Plessey says that it would take more than 90 days to arrange that, we in the Department will again point to the TES.
I would do everything that I could to ensure that those jobs were saved by TES, not only in Sunderland but on Merseyside. The Secretary of State for Industry will do everything he can to persuade Plessey to produce alternative products in Liverpool and Sunderland. It is clear—again, I depart from the brief—that there are telecommunications products which would have a sale in the export market. However, they certainly could not be out-of-date products.

Mr. Urwin: I am sorry to interrupt again, but this is perhaps the most important statement that my hon. Friend has made in his speech. He will recall that I pointed out that the TES can be applied for only by the employer. There is some doubt about the willingness of the Plessey management in Sunderland to do so and about whether that application could or would be made. What my

hon. Friend has said must be borne in upon the Plessey management in Sunderland at least. TES available to the company would amount to over £2 million for one year. This would assist the company's research and help it towards the development of a new technique which would fit in with Post Office and export requirements. If the company did not take up that offer, would the same offer be made if a co-operative were established in Sunderland?

Mr. Golding: I would not answer that question as categorically as I answered earlier points. Some hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench who have just come in seem to think that that is a joke. I do not treat this matter as a joke. I do not think that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who has sat here throughout the debate, has treated it in that way either.
I would need to discuss this with officials of the Department of Industry, but if my hon. Friends wants a meeting to discuss the subject, the Government would be willing to meet him and his colleagues from the North-East and Liverpool to explore the possibility. However, I could not give such a categoric answer to that question as I have given to the others.
I am to discuss the situation of Liverpool shortly with the North-West Regional TUC. I should be only too willing to do the same in the North-East. Our special measures include not only the temporary employment subsidy but the job creation programme, the work experience scheme, the youth employment subsidy and the job release scheme, which together have helped over 20,000 people on Merseyside and about 3,000 on Weir-side.
We are prepared to increase our efforts even further in the light of these closures, but we know that these special measures are not enough. That is why we are pledged in our industrial strategy to bring about the recovery of British industry and why the Prime Minister is so keen to ensure international action against this international course of unemployment. Only in that way, eventually, when we are making goods which people at home and abroad want to buy, can we ensure prosperity for the workers of Liverpool, Sunderland and the country generally.
I thank my right hon. and hon. Friends for the courteous way in which they have approached the terrible situation which faces their constituents. We in the Government feel deeply for them and will do all we possibly can to help them in this dilemma.

Orders of the Day — CONCORDE

6.17 p.m.

Mr. Robert Adley: The Under-Secretary of State for Employment has just spoken for 46 minutes, which is between a fifth and a quarter of the time that it would take Concorde to fly the Atlantic.
We are now to debate
increased expenditure on the development and production of Concorde, having regard to landing rights at New York.
The very wording of this topic shows that the British Government and the British taxpayer have been having to pay a considerable financial price for the deliberate delay to Concorde's entry into service to New York. The money spent during this time, and all the money spent on the development and production of Concorde, has been spent on the reasonable assumpton that treaties are worth the paper they are written on when they are signed on behalf of the Government of the United States of America. We shall see on Thursday whether that is so.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter. It is a happy coincidence—perhaps one of the few that we are likely to enjoy this week. Another is the timing of the visit of the Prime Minister to see President Carter. I pay tribute to the Prime Minister not only for deciding to fly to Washington in Concorde but for doing so with enthusiasm and élan. I am confident that he will do his utmost the promote the cause of Concorde while he is there.
The question is whether the Prime Minister of Britain and the President of France can persuade the President of the United States to abide by the treaty obligations entered into on behalf of the United States Government by the President's predecessors.
I shall do my best during this debate to keep in order. I realise that it is not

appropriate at this stage to have a lengthy discussion on the question whether or not Concorde should have been built. It is not appropriate to review the progress of the whole project.
I should also like to declare an interest, in that a number of my constituents work at the British Aircraft Corporation factory at Hurn, where Concorde is being built. Although the numbers involved are comparatively small, nevertheless it is an important factor, naturally, in shaping my thinking on this subject.
I believe that Concorde has tremendous popular support, although it has its detractors and there are two sides to every argument. The Minister has occasionally chastised me for being outspoken and perhaps for being an over-enthusiastic supporter of the project. However, I have been at it rather longer than he has and I hope that the House will not consider it immodest if I quote from my maiden speech:
I refuse to contemplate the possibility that a Government, my Government, elected to promote the individuality, energy and enthusiasm of the British people, and determined to accelerate the growth of European cooperation, could contemplate any course other than immediate, unequivocal and determined support for Concorde."—[Official Report, 6th July 1970; Vol. 803, c. 412.]
As a result of my commitment to Concorde I have always been aware that the problem that the aeroplane faces on Thursday of this week would have to be faced eventually. For that reason I accompanied the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn), now the Secretary of State for Energy, to Washington and New York as long ago as 1971 to do what we could to oppose the strong anti-Concorde campaign that even at that date was being waged against the aeroplane.
I greatly regret that the previous Conservative Government would not accept the suggestion that I put to them, as long ago as 1971, that a strong pro-Concorde campaign should be launched in New York all those years ago to combat the campaign that was being waged against the aeroplane at that time.
Perhaps I may be excused for making one or two further quotations. The Bristol Evening Post of 8th September 1970 said this:
We must launch a major pro-Concorde exercise in the United States.


On 5th December 1970 Air-Commodore Donaldson, the air correspondent of the Daily Telegraph, wrote:
The Americans are also expected to use every means, fair or even foul, to eliminate Concorde's undisputed lead.
The Financial Times of 23rd February 1971 reported the Secretary of State for Energy as he now is, as saying that:
If the New York State Assembly took action which led to the cancellation of Concorde without really going into it the result would be a major political issue between the United Kingdom, France and America.
So by way of apology to the Minister for being consistent on this issue I can claim that I have, perhaps, lived with it rather longer than he has. In fact, when I returned from that visit to the United States I wrote an article for the Sunday Telegraph of 28th February 1971. The article was entitled
Fight for Concorde's entry right.
I quote briefly from what I said then:
Strong voices behind the scenes will go far to prevent a foreign company from winning a share of new aircraft orders from United States airlines. The 'business isolationists' are always at work here, as B.P. well know. But the environment can be a useful hat for some.
The environment, of course, is the pretext which is being used by the anti-Concorde industry in New York. As I said earlier, Concorde has its opponents in Britain and it has its opponents m the United States. In Britain we have for years had to take highly critical comment from Andrew Wilson in the Observer, who has been proved wrong consistently. He said that the aeroplane would never fly. He then said that it would never fly across the North Atlantic. He said that customers would not pay excess fares to fly in it. It is noticeable how, when one argument has been disproved, Mr. Wilson has shifted to another.
Mary Goulding, ex-editor of the Economist, was another who for years waged a violent campaign against Concorde. One wonders how she must feel now when she sees the publication that she used to edit offering as a prize a trip across the Atlantic in the Concorde!
The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins), who has a strong constituency interest to prevent airport noise, has been a perfectly proper opponent of the

aircraft, because he believed that it would add to the problems of his constituents.
A Mr. Richard Wiggs of the Anti-Concorde Society, which may or may not be still in existence, was for a time outspoken on the subject.
Even the Bishop of Kingston took the trouble to go to the United States recently and speak out against the aircraft, although his evidence was, I think, slightly less effective than it might have been when people realised that one of the other projects that he was promoting was the belief that Jesus Christ was a homosexual.
So we have a variety of opponents to face in this country. Their motives are perfectly respectable. We respect those who say that this aircraft should never have been built. But that is not the issue we face today.
We face today a vicious and determined battle in New York itself from people who have never hidden their determination to use any argument that came to hand to prevent this British-French aeroplane from landing in New York. People such as Mr. Andrew Stein and Mrs. Bella Abzug are a very different breed of people from the sort of people who in this country we are used to arguing with on political issues. For them, of course, the anti-Concorde debate is a Heaven-sent issue; it is long lasting, so they can constantly keep their names before their constituents. It has emotions of patriotism which they are able to bring into their speeches. They can claim to be "the voice of the people". They can use the environmental argument in any way they wish and, perhaps most attractive for them, the truth can very easily be bent. The bending of the truth in New York is not a new industry. However, Mrs. Abzug and Mr. Stein would, I think, get honours degrees in the art of bending figures.
For this reason, I deeply regret that the British Government did not five years ago launch the pro-Concorde campaign in New York which has now been mounted effectively in the past few months by the present British Government and particularly by the French Government.
To the Americans, and I suppose to anybody who is minded to take up the anti-Concorde cause, the name itself is an easy target. Perhaps if the aeroplane had


been called the BAC169 nobody would have taken any notice of it. Nobody has yet answered the question that I have posed on many occasions to opponents of Concorde in the United States: what is it about a supersonic civil aircraft flying subsonically over the land but which happens to be operating under the colours of British Airways or Air France which is supposed to do things to the environment that supersonic military aircraft flying the colours of the United States Air Force do not do to the environment in the United States? As yet there has been no satisfactory answer.
We have an agreement between the British Government and the United States Government which allows Concorde to land in the United States. This agreement was not signed between Her Majesty's Government and the State of New Jersey or the State of New York; it was signed by the United States Federal Government.
It is shocking to think that an incoming United States President is unwilling, particularly in the light of the campaign he waged for honesty, fairness and decency, to stand up and support a commitment freely and openly entered into by his predecessors in office as Presidents of the United States.
Let us imagine a perhaps analogous situation—that the port authority at Dover decided that it did not want to have Germans landing at Dover because it did not like Germans. The German Government would make a complaint to Her Majesty's Government that German citizens were being prevented from landing at Dover. Is it conceivable that a British Prime Minister would say to the German Chancellor "I am terribly sorry, but this is a matter for the Kent County Council. You will have to take the matter up with the council. I cannot get involved in these details. It is nothing to do with me"? Of course it would be. It would be a matter that should be dealt with Government to Government. The Concorde question is one with which the United States Government should deal; they should honour a clear legal commitment entered into.
The opposition to Concorde in New York is political and has some really rather nasty overtones to it. Governor Carey of New York was quoted as say-

ing—I believe only yesterday—that perhaps he would accept Concorde if Abu Daoud were to be the first to step off the aeroplane.
The implications of that are that the New York and New Jersey Governors and their supporters are prepared to use Concorde as a weapon with which to chastise the French Government for a recent political action that took place in France, which no doubt upset many of the Jewish voters in New York.
I have no intention of discussing that, but the mere fact that a Governor of New York could produce a remark like that as a reason for not allowing this aeroplane to land is quite intolerable. I recall that when I was over there discussing this issue, at a time when the pro-IRA lobby was active, it was openly stated that people who were anti-British and who were supporting the IRA felt that any stick was suitable to beat a dog, and I must say that I often wonder how much Senator Kennedy's opposition to Concorde has to do with his known support for the Irish nationalist cause.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: That is a grave misrepresentation of the statements of Senator Kennedy.

Mr. Adley: Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me what Senator Kennedy's attitude to Concorde is now. He is known to have taken exception to the aircraft. All I am suggesting is that people's motives are often not so clear or quite so straightforward as they are supposed to be. I hope that my hon. Friend will not dispute that. I assure him that there are people who are not always as straightforward in stating their reasons for opposing Concorde as may appear at first sight.
The noise factor is often used as the main argument against Concorde. In fact, no case has ever been proved to show that Concorde is a noisier aircraft than other civil aircraft currently in service. I wonder how far President Carter has gone to check the facts. On our television screens last night we saw him talking about noise and the environment. It is all very well for these comments to be made, but I consider that the American Government should take the trouble to seek evidence with which to convince


themselves that Concorde is the environmental disaster which its enemies claim it to be.
How far has President Carter studied the complaints that have been coming from Dulles Airport in Washington? Has he, or have his advisers, studied, for example, the facts at Heathrow? In a Written Answer to a Question put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope), it was stated on 28th February that the two occasions when the noise was greatest at Heathrow during 1976 were in February and June, and the guilty aircraft was a Boeing 707.
In my view, the argument based on the environment has been totally misrepresented in New York. It has been a convenient hat for Concorde's opponents to wear, and there is no statistical evidence to prove that Concorde is a noisier or environmentally less acceptable aircraft than many of the other jets flying into and out of Kennedy Airport or dozens or other airports in America and elsewhere in the world.
Of course, no one argues—at least, I trust not—in this country or in the House about the importance of the environment. But for New Yorkers I should have thought that the ability to walk the streets alone and in safety would be an environmental problem which they would regard as just as important as whether Concorde was more or less noisy than a Boeing 707. One can fly over Phoenix in Arizona and see the haze that has been created over a period of years by aircraft pollution—pollution that has nothing whatever to do with Concorde—and one might have thought that that was an environmental problem that could attract the attention of Americans. One recalls the river in Cleveland that caught fire not so long ago because it was so polluted. That, also, might be an issue that the American environment lobby could get its teeth into. The Great Lakes are so polluted as to be unspeakable. There is also the lack of planning controls, which has resulted in the defacing of thousands of miles of highway in the United States. I submit that there are many issues to which the American environmentalists could turn their attention instead of concentrating upon Concorde.
I do not believe that Britain and France have a bad record in promoting civilisation. One could speak at length about the contribution that both countries have made. I ask myself what contribution to civilisation and the environment the Americans are making. On my television screen I see "Kojak", "Starsky and Hutch", "Serpico", "Cannon" and "Columbo", and it seems that violence is part of the American way of life. Only this morning on the "Today" programme I listened to an interview about a Mr. Carmine Galanti, who appeared on the streets of New York—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would tell us how he gets the time to watch and listen to all these programmes.

Mr. Adley: I listened to the "Today" programme on my radio this morning before I left home at 7.25 a.m. The "Today" programme is a radio programme which I commend to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I believe that the opposition to Concorde, which uses the environment in New York as the peg on which to hang its campaign is, in fact, political. It is significant that the trade unions in New York, the institutions of commerce and industry and the authorities concerned with the development of tourism are well aware of the damage to New York which the ban on Concorde has already done and the damage to that city's commerce and industry that could be done if the aeroplane were not allowed its legitimate rights to land. The ports of Tyre and Sidon learned long ago that no city on earth can claim in perpetuity a position as a major international gateway.
I do not know whether the Minister is able to tell us anything about the proposition that Braniff Airways will want to fly Concorde subsonically onwards from Washington. I saw it reported the other day that a spokesman in the United States said that this proposal would be rigorously opposed, not because Concorde would be flown supersonically over the United States—no one has ever suggested that—but just because it was another weapon to use in the anti-Concorde battle.
I fear—I say this as one who has the closest of ties, commercially, with America and a great affection for and affinity with its people—that underneath all the anti-Concorde trouble there is an unspoken doctrine, which I may call the "Great America" doctrine—the doctrine —that says that Americans should go anywhere in the world in the interests of private enterprise, to develop their commerce and industry and, if possible, dominate and take over sections of industry however vital they may be to the host country concerned. That is all part of the freedom of private enterprise, which Americans support. But if any foreign company should actually dare not only to set foot in the United States but to obtain a major slice of a vital industry, or an industry that the Americans consider to be vital to their own national interests, all of a sudden the shutters go up.
It was significant in the early days of Concorde, when the Americans were still considering whether they should build a supersonic aircraft, that it was an open secret that the American aircraft manufacturers were hoping to get into production with their own supersonic transport, hoping to buy off Concorde until they were ready to sell their aeroplane to those whom they saw as their own customers.
Now, however, the situation has changed, and two of the main organisations that are worried about the entry of Concorde into the United States are Pan American and TWA. I remember the time in 1973 or 1974—I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will remember it, too—when Mr. Fred Corfield, now Sir Frederick Corfield, used a phrase that has stuck in my mind ever since—that "Pan American could not afford to buy a bicycle." That company's fortunes may have improved a little since then, but there is no doubt that Pan American and TWA do not want to face the competition of British Airways and Air France flying Concorde from New York to London and New York to Paris. Therefore, behind the scenes, they are, I suspect, doing their bit to aid and abet the anti-Concorde industry in New York.
Where does all this leave us now? On Thursday the British Government will be backing British Airways and Air France in the next stage of their battle

with the Port of New York Authority. I hope that we win. I would be the happiest person in this House if it could be shown that everything that I have said was totally unjustified and unfair, and I am certain that many of my hon. Friends would join me in that pleasure.
But if the answer on Thursday is "No", we are likely to embark on a protracted legal battle in the courts of New York and New Jersey. If so, it will be an expensive lengthy and painful process. As I see it, Britain and France, through their airlines, will be arguing in court that the Federal Government have made a ruling for a trial for Concorde and that this is being opposed by the States of New York and New Jersey. So, in effect, these two European Governments will be fighting a battle against the States' rights of New York and New Jersey.
Not only would this process take years; the assumption leading from it is that the two airlines would be fighting on behalf of the Federal Government and of the rights of the Federal Government against the rights of State Governments. Yet we see the Federal Government in the shape of President Carter washing his hands of the issue and saying "I do not want to get involved". So long as he hides behind the skirts of the Port of New York Authority, I cannot see how such a legal battle could end in a victory for our airlines. Their position is nothing like as strong as that of our enemies.
I revert to the remark about "fair means or foul" which I quoted from the Daily Telegraph. I believe that the means being used in New York are far from fair. I believe that sooner or later the British and French Governments will have to recognise that diplomacy and the tactics employed so far have failed to preserve for our two nations the rights to which we are entitled. I want to ask three things of the Minister, although I do not expect categorical answers now.
First, I want an assurance that the Government will, inch for inch, match the determination of the French Government in standing up for the rights of Britain and France in this battle. Secondly, I want an assurance that if the answer on Thursday is "No", legal action, for what it is worth, will be started immediately.
Thirdly, I put a suggestion that the Minister may not welcome. I believe that we have to act. The time for words has gone on too long. If we identify the enemy of Concorde as the Port of New York Authority, and therefore New York itself, I believe that Britain and France jointly should be prepared to take specific action against the interests of New York.
I would like to see the British and French Governments getting together and withdrawing traffic rights between New York and Britain and New York and France. I am not suggesting the withdrawal of traffic rights between the United States and Britain and France but specifically from New York.
This move would harm British Airways and Air France, but it would also harm individual American carriers, as well as a number of international carriers with traffic rights between New York and London or Paris. I believe that the people in and around the New York area who have to come to Britain and France would continue to do so—they would fly first to Washington or Philadelphia or Boston and from there across the Atlantic.
The effect would be limited to New York. If those waging the anti-Concorde campaign in New York are really so concerned about the noise that they claim that Concorde would bring to Kennedy Airport, they must be aware that the Boeing 707 and the Douglas DC8 are as noisy, and we would be doing a kindness in removing more aircraft from their overall environment.
I was sorry to read today that New York is again hovering on the verge of bankruptcy. I cannot believe that the proposition that Concorde should be denied traffic rights will help the city's financial circumstances. I have never been able to understand why, if those in New York waging the anti-Concorde campaign are so convinced that they are right and that Concorde is a noisy, dirty environmental monster, they do not want it to have a trial in order to prove that they are right. One would have thought that the first thing they wanted was a trial in which they could be proved right. The truth is that they are afraid that the trial would prove them wrong, and that is why they do not want it to take place.

6.46 p.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: It is a pleasure to speak following the speech of the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) in this debate. I know that over the years he has done a great deal to promote the interests of Concorde. I have an interest also in that many of my constituents are employed at the aircraft works where Concorde is built. As a trade unionist and official of the Labour Party for many years before coming here, I helped to promote the interests of Concorde in and around Bristol.
I consider landing rights for Concorde into the Port of New York most important for the continued success of the Concorde project in general. The continued delay by the New York Port Authority in making up its mind one way or the other has created great uncertainty within the British aircraft manufacturing industry. A great many jobs are now at stake in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope). I am grateful for the stand now being taken by the British Government in making it clear to the New York Port Authority that they expect a decision one way or another on Thursday. I believe that the authority must not be allowed to delay the matter further.
I am grateful for the points made by the Minister in the Adjournment debate on Concorde on 24th February. He made it clear that the British Government contend that they have treaty rights entitling them to operate Concorde into the United States, including New York, that the air service agreements between the United States and Britain and France specify the requirements that aircraft must meet and that Concorde meets those requirements in full, and that the New York Port Authority is not entitled to withhold our rights to land Concorde at New York itself.
I believe that the Americans fear that once Concorde is on regular service across the North Atlantic, which is still the most lucrative route, their own airlines will be faced with supersonic competition and will either have to get hold of Concorde somehow—which means buying or leasing—or risk great financial consequences. For I believe that British


Airways and Air France are going to steal a very lucrative market. I believe that they will soon cream off with their Concordes the high-yield markets on the North American routes. The American airlines will then have to go supersonic in order to survive.
I believe that the Americans are still bitter about the fact that they spent £655 million in an abortive attempt to develop a supersonic transport, only to find themselves, at the end of it all, with no actual aircraft to show for their trouble.
Concorde is a great British achievement. It is something that we can be proud of. I congratulate the Prime Minister on making his trip to Washington this week in Concorde in order to meet President Carter. I believe that is throwing down the gauntlet in the present situation. Many of my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, are pleased that the Prime Minister has shown his support for the Concorde project at this time. It is something that we are grateful for. But in the light of the treaty rights that we have with the American Government the American Government cannot stand by and say that it is not a federal matter. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington. These points must be brought home to Governor Carey this week before a decision is made in New York.
The Americans have always said that their country is the land of the free. It appears to many of us that it is free to us no more and that future relations between the two countries are now under question. I believe that the American Government are responsible for the actions of the New York Port Authority this week. The American Government must get the authority into line if a confrontation between our two countries is to be avoided. I certainly hope that a confrontation will be avoided. It is the last thing that we want to happen, but to my mind it is coming to that stage.
A month ago the New York Port Authority asked for more time to evaluate data. I believe that was just a time-wasting exercise and that the authority is playing a waiting game. The opposition that we have experienced from the authority covers a large number of vested interests and lobbies in the United States.

Pan American and TWA certainly do not want Concorde to survive. American aircraft constructors also have vital interests. I believe that they see those interests being hurt, and their sales being hit, once Concorde is in operation. This has caused the American Government to break an international treaty fully drawn up in good faith between our two countries. It is now a vital matter.
Mankind in future will want to travel safely and comfortably at more than the speed of sound. If for one reason or another we were to cancel Concorde at this stage Britain would have no influence whatever over this important aspect of mankind's future activities. That would please the enemies of Concorde. But supersonic travel is happening and it cannot fail to dominate the long-haul and, eventually, the medium-haul routes of the world for the remainder of this century and beyond. The New York Port Authority cannot end supersonic flying by taking punitive action against Concorde aircraft going into New York.
Hon. Members on all sides of the House will remember that 20 years ago the operating arguments that are now being hurled at Concorde were used against the pure jet. Those arguments were used to such a sad effect in this country that projects were cancelled that would have secured for Britain the world leadership, which later went to Boeing. That is what happened then. Pressure is certainly being put on us at this stage to do almost exactly the same thing.
The only serious question mark against our supersonic airlines is whether the same kind of spurious argument will result in the hand-over of Concorde and its technology to the United States. It is as easy as that. That is why the Americans hope that Concorde and its programme will fail. They were hoping all along that it would fail technically. But Concorde has proved itself fully. As a result they can only take power over our technology if they can get us to cancel the present Mark I in time to build the next generation of supersonic aircraft, which will surely come irrespective of what President Carter or the New York Port Authority do on Thursday.
Both know full well that supersonic flying, and the Concorde aircraft in particular, represent the aircraft of the future.


The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington said that for many years military aircraft had been flying supersonic. That is so. That is why the environmental argument is such a spurious one and cannot really be taken seriously.
Britain and France have undertaken a huge investment in developing a supersonic aircraft. Whatever we say in this House, however far we go and however militant we are, we are but trying to protect the investment of this nation, the jobs of our people and the technology that has been the base on which the aircraft industry has developed.
I hope that we are all wrong about this. I hope that there will be a green light from New York on Thursday and that British Airways and Air France will be able to go into operation. But, at the same time, I hope that both airlines have sufficient trained crews to start flights immediately. We must start at once, because the plane makers have waited far too long for success. The development of Concorde has taken many long years. When the green light does come, I hope that we can move forward quickly.
It is only when Concorde is in regular service that we shall get the fresh orders necessary to keep the project teams together and the whole project alive. The continuation of the work is important. The present aircraft is, in my view, only the first step.
The determination that has been shown all along by the French Government, and is now being shown by the British Government, has been most encouraging. I myself have been to France on one occasion to talk to parliamentarians and on another occasion to speak to the manufacturers. The feeling there has always been that they foresaw this kind of situation arising and that there would be a confrontation with the Americans over landing rights into the USA. Certainly it was foreseen some 18 months ago, when a number of hon. Members formed an all-party group for the Concorde, and it is a matter on which we need to work closely in co-operation with the French if we are to crack this nut.
I should like to ask the Minister one question about British Airways. I hope that he will be able to give us an assurance that British Airways will be able to

take advantage of the situation in flying to New York and Washington and will also be poised to take advantage of opening up the London to Australia route as well. There are rumours—and they are only rumours⁁that British Airways have had difficulties in training crews. It would be very sad if this were to hold back the implementation of the routes after we had negotiated them. We must be prepared to grasp the opportunities which we hope will be available to us, and British Airways must not be allowed to hold back for one reason or another. I hope that the Government will look at this to make sure that fully trained air crews are available to implement these services as soon as possible.
Concorde has great potential. I hope that the Government will keep a very close watch on what is going on because a great many of us who have had consultations about it are worried. There will be strong resentment in this country and in France if New York continues to delay the entry of Concordes, and it will be difficult for us to explain it to those many thousands of people who have contributed their skills and labour to this fine aircraft. All of us want to see British and French technology succeeding. The action in not allowing us a fair trial period is not what we would expect from a friendly nation. If that is friendship, I hate to think what our enemies may do to us.
To my mind, there is a growing volume of support, even in New York itself, for the entry of Concorde. Many important organizations, representing both labour and the business community, have come out in favour of the aircraft being allowed in. The common theme expressed by all of them is that New York needs Concorde's services to Europe, and there will be benefit for them in this happening. There will be benefit for us as well. We do not deny that. But they can see Concordes bringing more business to New York. We have to bear in mind that conferences are being moved to other places and that people are going to Washington just to fly in the Concorde. This is a very telling factor. The State of New York is in deep financial trouble.
I hope that, in conjunction with the French Government, we shall take whatever steps are necessary. I fear that the legal battle in this matter will not be


the best way to resolve the difficulty. It will be long, and I believe that it will be unsuccessful. That means that a decision will have to be made about the work force. It means that a decision will have to be made about the future programme before the legal action is brought to a conclusion.
As I have said, the French have for a long time considered that this matter ought to be dealt with more quickly. Bearing in mind all the implications for us, at the end of the day we must consider retaliatory action against American interests in this country. I know that the Government hope very much that this will be unnecessary, because it would damage us as well. But the damage has already been done, and further damage may well be done on Thursday to Anglo-American and Franco-American relations. We have to show our resolve in standing firm on what we have said.
The decision must be made. We can no longer be fooled around with. But many of us in this House will not fudge the issue when it comes. To my mind, we are being dealt with unfairly, and we must be prepared to take action against New York and American interests generally if the United States Government refuse to back us up. Our investment, our technology and perhaps even Britain's role as an aircraft manufacturer are at risk. With the French Government, we must protect our interests and secure the future access of our supersonic aircraft, on which so many hopes and livelihoods depend.
I hope that the British Government will take the very strongest action, in consultation with the French, to make sure that the Americans know exactly where we stand.

7.6 p.m.

Mr. John Cope: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) and the hon. Member for Kings-wood (Mr. Walker), I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we are wasting your time, in the sense that the New York Port Authority will make the right decision on Thursday and come down on our side, thereby proving that we need not have held this debate at all.
.
I want to refer briefly to one remark of the hon. Member for Kingswood about the training of air crews. By all means let the Government look at this, but I hope also that the unions involved will consider their position. If the opportunity occurs and if it is missed because of action of that kind, they will not lightly be forgiven.
I wish to make two points. The first is one of detail and, I am afraid, statistical. However, that befits my profession as an accountant. The second is a more general point.
I deal first with the detailed point. Which concerns noise and the controversy that I seem unwittingly to have caused by putting down a Written Question to the Under-Secretary for Trade last week, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington referred.
I asked the Minister whether he would list the noisiest aircraft at Heathrow and the noise that they made. The published answer did not show Concorde in the list. That was taken by some, notably the Earl of Kimberley in another place and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington here, to mean that Concorde was not the noisiest aircraft at Heathrow in any month during the 13 months referred to in the answer. In fact, the Concorde figures were given recently in a CAA report—the so-called DORA report from the authority's Directorate of Operational Research and Analysis. Therefore, the Concorde figures can be compared with the figures for subsonic aircraft which were given in the Written Answer last week.
Blending the DORA information on the Concorde with the Written Answer's information on subsonic aircraft, it appears that only in three months during the 13-month period was Concorde the noisiest aircraft at Heathrow, as measured at the normal fixed monitoring points. 1 understand that this will be confirmed in a Written Answer to be given later on by the Department.
The figures also indicate that in the whole period during which the Concorde has been operating, in one month the Concorde and in two months a Boeing 707 made the loudest noise, of 124 PNdB. I am not sure why the answer was different from that. It has misled a number of people and upset a number


of people, including Mr. Richard Wiggs, of the anti-Concorde project. I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington that this organization is still in operation, because I had a letter from Mr. Wiggs this morning in connection with the Written Answer that I received. He sent me a copy of a letter that he has sent to the Department of Trade, to Governor Carey, and to the Chairman of the New York Port Authority, attacking the information given in the Written Answer.
In that respect his letter is correct but in other respects it is disgracefully misleading in the way that it misrepresents the DORA report on Concorde's operation from Heathrow. The DORA report makes clear on page 1 that it is comparing the performance of all the Concordes that flew out of Heathrow in the relevant period with the performance of some but by no means all subsonic aircraft. Page 1 of the report makes clear that it is concerned with only a sample of the other aircraft.
I also asked a parliamentary Question about the size of the sample, but I was told that information on the size of the sample in the DORA report was not readily available. I am not sure why the information should not be readily available. The numbers in the DORA sample are given in the report and are obvious from the tables. I cannot believe that the Government do not know the other figures needed to indicate the size of the total from which the sample was taken, namely, how many aircraft took off or landed at Heathrow.
I understand that in one representative week, from 6th to 12th September, there were four Concorde movements and 137 Boeing 707 movements. The DORA report deals with the noise from all the Concorde movements but less than one in 20 of the Boeing 707 movements. Mr. Wiggs and others, in considering the DORA report, tried to make out that the report deals with all subsonic flights, but in the Written Answer that I was given about the report, some of the noisiest flights in that period were not included. It is this kind of answer, concealing the size of sample, that gives some of us the idea that some people in Government are not as keen on Concorde as we are
.
I am aware that the noise of different aircraft makes different patterns, different footprints and different graphs on the ground. One can measure any aircraft at different places, but the fact remains that according to the normal fixed monitoring stations at Heathrow Concorde is not the noisiest aircraft there. By a short head, the Boeing 707 is. That opens the door to retaliation.
I, like my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington, am thinking of retaliation against New York rather than retaliation against the whole of America. The only thing that has brought us to discussing this problem at all is that we are fed up with being patient with the Americans.
That brings me to my general point. I have always counted myself a friend of the Americans. I like them, and my wife is partly American, but there is a limit to our patience, and we have reached it. [Interruption. ] I must tell the Under-Secretary that I was not talking about patience with my wife. Just because I have been married for seven years does not mean that anything else has happened. We have reached the limit of our patience with the Americans. If they decide against us and take the wrong decision on Thursday they must expect to have to deal with a belligerent and determined campaign.
It is sad to see New York, of all places, in this mood. I believe that New York is making a mistake not only from our point of view but from its own point of view. To single out Concorde would be a blunder. Already traffic is diverting to Washington—and there is also the Braniff application. Increasingly New York will find this sort of thing happening. New York has no prescriptive right to through traffic. Geography helps, but it does not guarantee New York's position as the main airport city of the East Coast. It seems that New York has been overtaken by a death wish, like an aged fighter who has outlived his strength but still thinks that he can throw his weight around without regard to the consequences.
I hope that the Government will make clear to the New York authorities that if they refuse Concorde it will not kill Concorde or kill its entry to America—it is already flying to Washington�žbut it will cut New York off the supersonic map. That will be a self-inflicted wound. It will


also start a landing rights war in which my hon. Friends and I will be firing some of the shots. Such a war will not be in anyone's interest, and I hope that it will not be necessary.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: It is difficult to match the grasp of facts and the eloquence of the three preceding speakers, who have for long been acknowledged not as members of the pro-Concorde lobby but as leaders of the national movement for taking the frontiers of British and French—and that means European—aviation one critical step further forward for the benefit of mankind as a whole. If that sounds dramatic, it is deliberate, because that is just what is at stake in the decision that the New York Port Authority is to take on Thursday.
All the subordinate details and all the facts that we have had on Concorde over a number of years, despite ferocious and cruel opposition from all quarters—and the resistance continues beyond the bounds of all pragmatic fairness and natural justice—show that Concorde has progressed. I, like the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker), noted what a difference there was between the forceful posture of French Governments and the rather hesitant posture of British Governments. That is now being counteracted. A lot of that is due to the Under-Secretary of State for Trade. He and his colleagues know that there is now a more clear-cut realisation of the critical nature of the stage that we have reached. All those in the industry—employers and trade unions—see what a crucially important week this is.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): wish to put the record straight on one comment made by the hon. Gentleman, in which he may have inadvertently made a misstatement. It was my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry who gave evidence at the Coleman hearings. He was the only Minister so to do on the part of either Government. The determination of the British Government was made patently obvious at those hearings.

Mr. Dykes: I did not want to give any impression that would cause anxiety in

the Minister's mind. The realisation has grown that this matter has to be pushed forward. It is a very complicated scenario, as the localised resistance in New York has increased.
We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) for initiating the debate. My hon. Friends gave the impression that this ferocious resistance on the part of some malevolent people in New York and in New York State was universal, but that is not true. I have used the word "malevolent" reluctantly, but deliberately.
There is a growing lobby in New York, both numerically and in terms of central forcefulness, which is in favour of Concorde. The worst fears of the environmentalists in Washington, expressed when the Dulles experiment began, have been completely confirmed. There is no evidence that Concorde is any more of a nuisance than any other aircraft, in terms of noise and smoke emission. Smoke emission is still a bit of a problem, but noise is the main factor.
The statistics show that every aeroplane causes noise nuisance. What would have been the attitude of people in the United States if there had been an outcry here in Britain about noise when the Boeing 707 first came upon the scene? We can imagine what that reaction would have been. Over the last two decades the United States has made the running and dominated the world markets in avionics and aviation. It has done it for all sorts of reasons, fair and unfair. We could debate them at great length, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but not tonight. Now, however, it is time for Europe—represented in this case by France and Britain—to assert itself.
We have seen what happened recently when the French lost the "sale of the century" for the latest all-purpose aircraft ordered for NATO. There has been a saga of unfairness all through the years. Now it enters the field of the supersonic transport. There is a complicated political situation in New York, which it is impossible to analyse in my short speech today. There is an immensely complex web of interests, lobbies and sub-lobbies. The recently appointed Commissioners of the New York port authority had to give an undertaking to the State Traffic Commissioner, for example, that they were


definitely anti-Concorde, and they made a number of speeches to that effect.
There is, therefore, the fear that Thursday's decision will not necessarily be fair. The Prime Minister has made his position clear on the matter. The Government's stance has been unequivocal and declared repeatedly on various occasions. The Prime Minister will be flying to the United States in Concorde on his official visit. We hope that President Carter will be courageous on this issue, and he has the opportunity now to be so.
There is an enormous complication between federal politics and local or state politics. In addition, the whole doctrine of interpositionism arises in this area, and it is difficult for us here in Britain with our different political patterns to analyse that. All these factors must be taken into account. If President Giscard d'Estaing makes a vital phone call to the President of the United States that plea is something that the Americans have to heed. The New York port authority does not have to give a final definitive "Yes" when it reaches its decision. It can endorse whatever is sought, which in this case is a trial period along the lines of that in Dulles, Washington.
Hon. Members are quite right to raise—I realise that they have done it reluctantly—the possibility of retaliatory action if the wrong decision is taken on Thursday. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that the British Government will apply every pressure on the Americans to make the right decision. A great deal will flow from what is decided on Thursday. A lot of money has been spent by Britain and France in this project on what is undoubtedly the most exciting frontier-breaking aircraft constructed for many years.
There are those in the American aircraft production lobby who wait with eagerness in the hope that the project will be killed at this stage. I do not know whether there is enough at stake here for it to be killed. Concorde has shown what it can do on other routes. Air France has done well with its route to South America. Once the Bahrein route is extended enormous progress will be made in that direction.
Concorde has had perhaps the most heartbreaking battle of any aircraft, civil

or military, since the war. Complete victory is not in sight, or even round the corner. Thursday could provide not just one small additional step in the long path towards progress and success, but that decisive breakthrough that the Americans themselves will ignore at their peril.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I rise to support by hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker). I am particularly grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) for having raised the matter tonight and for giving us the opportunity to have this brief debate.
My hon. Friend said that he had been involved in this subject for many years. I have a tremendous feeling of déjà vue because when I was an official of this House I wrote the report of the Estimates Committee in 1962–63 at the beginning of the Concorde project. The Committee was chaired by the then Mr. Robert Carr, now Lord Carr, and it expressed considerable scepticism at the price estimates given to the House, about the break clause factor and over the proportion of investment to be made in relation to expenditure on subsonic aircraft.
Many of these apprehensions turned out to be true, but we are now in an entirely different situation. This technological triumph has created also a political triumph. One of the most fascinating and important aspects has been the unique agreement and understanding between British and French engineers, and it is in that respect that the project is the most impressive.
I would be unhappy if this debate were to conclude without some appreciation of the genuine difficulty which faces the United States Administration. Many people tend to underestimate the degree of autonomy given in the United States to individual States and even to authorities within States. The situation is not quite as simple as many people appear to think. However, I fully accept my hon. Friends' point about the degree of pressure and about the need for the United States Government to honour their responsibilities under the treaty. I should, however, be unhappy if we gave the impression that we did not understand or sympathise with the difficulties
which confront the Washington Administration.
I think that perhaps some of my hon Friends underestimate the power and sincerity of the environmental lobbies and groups in the United States. I have lived in New York State for the last four years. The concern and seriousness of those people, which might have been exploited, was a major factor in the destruction of the American SST. It would be slightly unfair to many of these sincere people if we gave the impression that this was entirely a power ploy.
I hope that the President realises more than almost anyone else the importance of appearances and of symbolism here. If the agreement does not go through and if Concorde is not allowed at least a brief, fair trial, the people in this country and in France will draw conclusions which may be harsh against the President and the administration and which may be slightly unfair, but which will nevertheless be drawn because Concorde asks and merits a fair trial in New York. I regret some of the language used by the French Government about retaliation. I do not think that this is the right way to talk to the United States Administration, particularly to a new Administration. However, I hope that the United States Government will be left in no doubt by the Prime Minister of the sincerity and the fervour of feeling which lies behind the wish to give Concorde a fair chance.
I hope that in replying to the debate the Minister will recognise the sincerity of us all in this matter. I have no strict constituency interest comparable to those interests held by my hon. Friends, but I believe that I have a national interest as someone who wishes that this remarkable aircraft and this remarkable example of Anglo-French co-operation may be given a fair chance.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I have a great regard for Concorde. It is the plane of the future. Probably the American attitude is governed in the main by the fact that we and the French were the first to produce such an aircraft. There is, however, one thing which worries me considerably, and I have had correspon-

dence with the Minister about it. It is the mysterious 9 o'clock boom which hits my constituency every evening. It coincides with the return of the French Concorde. If we are to convince the Americans that it is right and proper that they should accept the Concorde—and I believe that to be so—the French Concorde should go subsonic at the Scillies. That would leave the boom in the Atlantic and would not cause great problems to my constituents.

Mr. Adley: Would my hon. Friend confirm that that boom, which should be put in perspective, appears to be from a sideways direction of supersonic flight, as he has indicated, and that as there is no similar circumstance in the United States to the relationship of his constituents and mine to the English Channel, the situation is not one that could be used by Americans seeking to use his experience in the battle that they are waging?

Mr. Mawby: I shall be absolutely fair. My own experience of this was only last evening. As I was watching television I heard the boom, which sounded like someone blowing up a cooling tower. There was no rattling of windows, nor was there any damage to my property. But some of my constituents further west, about 30 miles beyond me, have put forward evidence that damage has been caused to their property.
The Minister has written to me giving me all the details of the investigations that have been made, which appear to be expert investigations, but there is no concrete evidence that the damage has been caused by the French Concorde. However, if Concorde went subsonic a mile earlier, we should have a better argument to put to the Americans.
It seems that most of these booms and most of the damage occurs at 9 o'clock at night. It could be just a coincidence or just one of those things. If we want to make certain that the Americans will accept this plane—which I believe they should, because it is a great plane and ought to be accepted, certainly on long flights over the Pacific in future—the French ought to co-operate in going subsonic a mile earlier and so protecting my constituents and all the constituents of Cornish Members.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Pattie: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to my hon. Friends and to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) because my attendance on a Select Committee meant that I was unable to be here at the start of the debate. I gather that since the debate started word has come over the tapes that Governor Carey has repeated today his assertion that he does not want Concorde to land in New York. As he appoints half of the Port of New York Authority personnel, I do not think that we can be too optimistic about the decision later this week.
When I was in the United States a few months ago I talked to people in New York and in Washington about this problem. I was struck by the fact that a considerable body of opinion indicated that although many people were not necessarily all that keen on Concorde as a project they thought that their own Government were being unfair. If the Federal Government decided that Concorde should run for a trial period, it would be sensible to use that period to monitor the environmental impact. If the decision is adverse, there may be evidence that Concorde had an adverse effect on the environment in New York. My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) was right to point out the problems, which anyone who has been to New York and seen people's proximity to the airport will recognise.
There is no argument that I can conceive in natural justice and equity for not allowing the trial to take place. If Concorde is allowed into Washington it should be allowed into New York as well. Many people in New York, particularly trade unionists and businessmen, are concerned about the loss of revenue from people who would otherwise have used New York in its historic rôle as a port of entry into the United States. In this context it is not insignificant to note that about 25 per cent. of the present Concorde passengers from Washington are travelling from New York to Washington to commence their journey. Admittedly, there is not an enormous number of people using that service, but it is a trend.
I hope that the Prime Minister will take a strong line with President Carter

when he meets him this week. One cannot help but speculate about what might have been if the United States had had a supersonic aircraft which it was hoping would he allowed to land at Heathrow. One can imagine all the pressure that would have been brought to bear on us. We would have been told that we must be British, that it is a great British tradition to see fair play, and that surely they must be allowed to carry on with the test. All sorts of sinister things would happen and different moneys would not be available to us. Now that it is the other way round, the President is saying that the Americans have a federal structure and he cannot interfere with New York's decision.
New York—whatever semantic phrase one uses—is virtually bankrupt. It is looking to the Federal Government for cash. One does not have to be clairvoyant to see that the President has a certain amount of leverage which he could exercise over the New York authorities. It is not good enough for him to say that it is a decision just for the local authority concerned. That is the kind of statement which is made by people who do not want to get involved. It is always a decision for someone else when one wants them to make a rotten one, but it is something one will step into when one believes that one has the power.
I note with interest, and support, the pressure that is being exerted in typical Gallic fashion by the President of France. I wish that our own Prime Minister would be equally vigorous. Perhaps he is keeping his powder dry for the close confrontation. I hope that the Minister will take the message from this debate to the Prime Minister that those of us who have spoken represent many who feel that this superb technological achievement is being discriminated against by a country which feels a certain amount of sour grapes that it has no comparable project, and is doing everything it can by dragging its feet to stop our aircraft from getting in.

7.38 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The House and the country will be grateful that the debate has taken place. I am obliged to the hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington (Mr. Adley) for taking this opportunity to raise it
Three days remain for a vital decision to be taken. As I said in the recent debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker), on the basis of the evidence available there is room for only one decision, a favourable one. The time for delaying ploys, for pretext, for politicking by the Port of New York Authority has come to an end. We have to take into account the possibility that the Port of New York Authority may place its own allegedly—I use that word advisedly—political interests ahead of the long-term interests of New York and will come to an adverse decision. We must be prepared for that possibility, and we are.
It is for that reason that we have fixed a hearing date for 15th March. That appeal to the courts should never be necessary where two countries have entered into treaty rights one with the other. We have always asserted that those rights are paramount, that it is not for a local authority to consider that it can override such rights. Therefore, we shall pursue our legal rights in the courts and at the same time—for these are not matters which are mutually exclusive—pursue our diplomatic rights.

Sir John Langford-Holt: In the event of a refusal by the New York authorities, would the hon. Gentleman regard the Americans as being in breach of the treaty?

Mr. Davis: That is obviously the view we take, otherwise we would not have embarked upon litigation in the first place. The matter has been raised before a Federal court on the basis of our treaty rights. All that has happened is that that has been adjourned generally, with liberty to restore, and we have taken advantage of the situation to fix the hearing date for 15th March. It will be heard if there is, unhappily, an adverse decision.
Hon Members have rightly asked during this debate what would have happened if the situation had been the reverse and we had excluded some American aircraft, perhaps a somewhat less remarkable American aircraft. I sense that there would have been a certain degree of trauma on the part of the American Government, and there might even have been a quiver here and there coming from New York. The Americans would have

asserted that we had discriminated against their aircraft.
The hon. Member for Christchurch and Lymington has from time to time made certain allegations which I have tried to temper a bit. When he has made them, the United States authorities have asserted that there is no discrimination, and they continue to assert that. One excuse after the other is put forward to justify what I consider to be a pose.
Another highly significant point has been made during this debate, and I believe that it is a view which is mirrored in many parts of the United States, including New York. It is that it is New York that will be disadvantaged by an adverse decision. I do not believe that New York is in a position to throw away this opportunity to take advantage of this great new technological achievement, which can bring immense benefit to that city.
During the Adjournment debate on 24th February I spelled out the importance of New York to the Concorde project. It is a reciprocal state of affairs. There are advantages both to the New Yorkers and to the project. I stated that New York represented the key to Concorde's success, because it is a tremendously important route. It is the route for which Concorde was primarily designed and which must be exploited by the French and British airlines if the investment in Concorde is to be paid off. It is a route which we are entitled to exploit.
The profound concern which has been expressed in the House about the possibility of an adverse decision has been mirrored in the personal messages from my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the President of France to President Carter, who has several times stated his support for Mr. Secretary Coleman's decision. Indeed, he repeated it over the weekend. But President Carter has also asserted on equally numerous occasions that the decision is for the Port of New York Authority or the Governor of New York. President Carter has now added to the argument a new dimension which we must take seriously, that tighter noise standards may be unilaterally—I stress the word "unilaterally"—demanded and applied within the United States.
Let me deal with the two essential points separately, beginning with the treaty rights. The Governments of the


United Kingdom and France have stated publicly that we regard the delay m allowing Concorde flights into New York as a serious violation of not only the spirit but the specific requirements of our bilateral air services agreements with the United States. The position we have taken with the administration and the court is that the airlines have satisfied all the conditions which may be imposed in regard to Concorde services by the United States under the respective bilateral agreements.
First, British Airways and Air France are designated airlines for the operation of commercial services to New York from London and Paris respectively. Secondly, these designations have been accepted by the United States Government. Thirdly, the United States Civil Aeronautics Board has concluded that the airlines are "fit, willing and able" to perform their functions under the meaning of United States law, and has therefore granted foreign air carrier permits for air services on these routes. Fourthly, the Secretary of Transportation concluded that Concorde would comply with all the rules and regulations which, under the bilateral agreements, affect air services into the United States.
It was in those circumstances that both airlines were authorised to conduct services to Kennedy Airport using Concorde. These findings have established completely the necessary compliance with all the relevant provisions of the bilateral agreements. These agreements also give the United States Government rights to revoke or limit the airlines' treaty rights to operate agreed services if a violation of United States laws or regulations occurs. But such action is reserved to " each Contracting Party "—that is on the United States side the Government of the United States. The Port of New York Authority is not a contracting party. It was never contemplated by either the British or French Governments—or, I believe, the United States Government—that local authorities could arrogate to themselves this power to limit landing rights as though they were contracting parties to the agreements.
That is the treaty rights position in a nutshell.
I deny President Carter's statement in the weekend phone-in programme that it

is possible for the Federal Government of the United States to shuffle off on to the Port of New York Authority or Governor Carey the whole question of determining the treaty rights, or that those treaty rights can be subordinated to the diktat of a local authority.
On the facts of the matter, I stated the other day and I repeat—I need not rehearse them in detail—that we, the French and British Governments, Air France and British Airways, notwithstanding the view that we have taken on treaty rights and without prejudice to them, have co-operated in every possible way with the United States Government and the Port of New York Authority in determining whether Concorde ought to be admitted to New York. Notwithstanding the unprecedented severity of the tests to which Concorde was subjected, it has come out with flying colours. There is not a scintilla of evidence available which can lead to any other reasonable conclusion.
I turn to the second point made by President Carter concerning the capacity of the United States to administer tighter, more rigorous noise standards unilaterally. I believe that to be in flagrant contradiction of the views expressed by the United States representatives of ICAO, the international body which controls civil aviation operations by rules and procedures which are mutually agreed between its members. We trust that there is no question of the United States imposing new regulations unilaterally while discussions in ICAO—discussions which are proceeding under the co-chairmanship of the United States—on the question SST noise are still proceeding.
Having said that and, I hope, having disposed in essence of the two essential pillars of the arguments which have been relied on in the United States, I should point out that the facts to which hon. Members have alluded about the predictions concerning the performance of Concorde have been fulfilled in every way possible.
Hon. Members were right to refer to the unfortunately inflammatory way in which some of the fears and anxieties of people who live close to Kennedy Airport have been exploited. As Minister with responsibility for aviation, I know only
too well that it is easy for people justifiably to get anxious about noise which can sometimes be intolerable. However, I suspect that the impact of Concorde at New York—if and when we are able to use Kennedy Airport—will have a minimum effect in terms of the overall noise disturbance which is currently prevalent at that airport.
Judging from the propaganda which has emanated from the Port of New York Authority and from some of those in this country who bear Concorde ill will and have never been slow to produce their evidence to its enemies, one would have thought that the aircraft would dramatically change the whole picture of disturbance and environmental pollution at New York. Nothing could be further from the truth. Therefore, I state now, as I stated the other day—if necessary, I shall go on stating—that Concorde has fulfilled all the predictions which we said would occur and which Mr. Secretary Coleman indicated at the time of the important and profound investigation which he carried out.

Mr. Pattie: Would it support the Minister's point on the question of noise if he told the House about the impact of Concorde within the Heathrow context? I believe that some figures recently produced by his Department show that other aircraft have been noisier than Concorde on all occasions that it has been flying.

Mr. Davis: I was going to come to that point. The hon. Gentleman need have no fear on that score. I was invited to refer to that matter by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Cope). It may be convenient if now in parentheses I say that his question was unfortunately misunderstood. I accept responsibility for that. When the hon. Gentleman asked his question, we assumed that it referred to fixed monitoring points. Of course, the hon. Gentleman had noise infringements in mind. Indeed, I have answered a Question on this matter today. It may be for the convenience of the House if I refer to that Answer.
Concorde is, of course, exempt from the statutory noise limits. No mention of Concorde was made in the original Answer for that reason. I think that the

hon. Gentleman wanted Concorde noise levels included, so we have put the record straight. We have set out a table which makes clear what the league results would have been had Concorde been included within the specification requested by the hon. Gentleman. Only in May, September and October was Concorde the noisiest aircraft. That is a relevant factor. It does not accord with the propaganda which the opponents of Concorde have been seeking to enlist on this matter.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Which aircraft were the noisiest for the other months?

Mr. Davis: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better look at the Answer. I do not want to weary the House with a catalogue of facts which will be available in Hansard tomorrow.
The hon. Member for Chertsey and Walton (Mr. Pattie) referred to the confirmation hearings of the Port of New York Authority Commissioners. I was deeply disturbed by some of the evidence which came out at those hearings. I believe that it is incumbent on the Port of New York Authority to view the evidence objectively in a judicial way. It is not a judicial authority. Nevertheless, in my view, it is required to do that. I do not believe that the confirmation hearings were an entirely happy augury. I have no doubt that the views of those who gave evidence were based on information provided by the Port of New York Authority itself. That worries me, because it was a decidedly one-sided version. The interrogation by Senator Caemerrar was clearly designed to secure a response to various anti-Concorde questions which he posed.

Mr. Adley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that when the Secretary of State for Energy and I met officials of the Port of New York Authority way back in 1971, it was made clear to us that, from the evidence available to them, Concorde was going to be perfectly acceptable, but, as they told us, they were in the hands of the politicians, and the politicians would decide what the facts should look like and what the answer would be at the end of the day?

Mr. Davis: The hon. Member has reinforced my point and he has done so


anecdotally. I am sure that his experiences in those days filled him with justification about his belief as to how the Port of New York Authority would handle the matter. I know that the hon. Member has had grave reservations about that.
We have tried constantly to encourage the Port of New York Authority to deal with the evidence objectively. If at the end of the day they decide not to do so, I have explained to the House some of the consequences. Even though there are only three days left, there is still time for that objective approach. I have not given up hope. Any negative decision based on the type of questioning with some of the answers that we read about the other day would constitute a perverse finding which is wholly against the weight of available evidence.
Hon. Members have raised the question of support for Concorde amongst the citizens of New York. That is right. It has been revealed not only through business interests, which are widely representative, but also by the New York Labour Council, which represents over 1 million members. Even more significantly, and perhaps even humorously in the context in which we are attacked on this matter, Kennedy Airport is in Long Island and the Long Island Association for Commerce and Industry has come out on our side. The members of that association know what they are talking about and what are the interests of Long Island. We and the French have spared no efforts to bring the true facts home to the ordinary New Yorker.
Hon. Members have raised the question of retaliation. I recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed. No doubt hon. Members and the whole country would be embittered if it were decided on Thursday evening that Concorde should be denied entry into New York. I hope that the Port of New York Authority will have an opportunity of noting the feeling that has been expressed in the House.
More to the point, what we expect the United States to do is to meet the treaty obligations. If they fail to do that, we must reserve the right to take whatever action that we think most appropriate. It would be wrong for me at the Dispatch Box to disclose the hand of the British

Government, and I certainly cannot disclose the hand of the French Government. It would be unhelpful to speculate on the form that any such retaliation might take. There can be no doubt about the impact of the message of President Giscard to President Carter the other day. I want to emphasise the close co-operation that we enjoy with the French Government.
The Prime Minister will be in the United States at the time that the decision is made by the Port of New York Authority. I can give the House a categorical assurance that he will take the opportunity to reaffirm the views that he has already made unmistakably to President Carter on this matter. A denial of our treaty rights would be regarded as grave. Should the decision be negative I expect the Prime Minister to restate that our treaty rights were being denied, particularly in the context of the United Kingdom-United States negotiations for a new air services agreement.
The hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) raised the problem of the sonic boom. I have dealt with that in correspondence with a number of hon. Members who rightly raised the issue. There has been no parallel complaint in the United States as a result of flights into Washington or out of Washington. The Bristol University study has put the issue in its correct perspective. Having said that, I can assure the hon. Member for Totnes and the House that we take these matters very seriously. We are at present engaged in a joint investigation and monitoring exercise with the French. It is only by getting the evidence together and carefully analysing it that we can come to the right conclusions.
I have said that there are five reasons why Concorde should be admitted to New York. First, President Carter's own statements have said that Concorde should be allowed to enter New York. Second, the Port of New York Authority had every little bit of information that it could have required from us. We have co-operated to the full. Third, the experience at Washington shows that the information that we have given is totally correct. Fourth, New York will benefit from Concorde's services to Europe. Fifth, let no one misunderstand the depth of feeling both in this country and in France should Britain and France be


denied their right to exploit this remarkable aircraft.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. John Nott: It is right that I should welcome the vigorous and forceful statement by the Minister on this important issue. Not only is the future of Concorde vitally affected by the decision but our national interest is at stake. The Prime Minister should know that he has the support of both the major parties and, I believe, the support of the minority parties, when he goes to New York in a few days' time. The Conservative Party gives the fullest possible support to the Government and to the Prime Minister on this issue. As my hon. Friends have said, I hope that there will be a happy conclusion to this very important matter by the end of the week.

Orders of the Day — TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION (SCOTLAND)

Mr. Speaker: I have a short statement to make. First, I want to remind hon. Members that we are on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill and hon. Members are able to speak but once. I hope that hon. Members will remember that.
Secondly, I have a more important statement to make. Two hours and 20 minutes ago I was advised that the next debate was one that could give cause for substantial doubt whether it was covered by the Vote under which it is to be discussed. I have given much thought to the matter and I believe that it is unreasonable and that it offends against one's sense of fair play to rule out the debate at such short notice. Therefore, I shall permit the debate, but I want the House to know that I shall certainly not regard this as a precedent. On the Consolidated Fund Bill we must keep to our rule that we debate that which is covered by the Vote. Since there is a little doubt in my mind on this occasion, I shall allow the debate.

Mr. Hector Monro: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I know that the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) is eager, but I must remind the House that the next debate is not about the closure of teacher training colleges in Scotland.

Passing references are inevitable but to go into it in depth would certainly not be covered by the subject which has been chosen by the hon. Member for Dumfries.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: My hon. Friends and I are grateful for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. We appreciate the opportunity to raise the matter this evening since many of us have come down from Scotland especially for the debate. I am pleased that the Under-Secretary is in his place, but I am sorry that I must begin by saying one or two unkind things about his handling of the situation. I shall relate the total complement of teachers in Scotland to the subject of the debate—superannuation. The hon. Gentleman must accept that he has handled this matter so far with lamentable inefficiency. I doubt whether any Scottish Education Department Minister has set out so successfully to put every back up in Scotland.
The consultative paper that we are discussing in relation to the provision of teachers opens up the numbers of teachers that will be required in Scottish education in the next few years and directly relates to the numbers who will require superannuation. It is this total, related to the number of colleges training teachers, upon which the sum of superannuation will in part depend.
Secondly, the Minister cannot have read the document, otherwise even he would have seen the consequences of publication. It was minus most of the facts required for anyone to make a balanced judgment.
The Under-Secretary and his right hon. Friend then had a chance in a two-day debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. Questions of great moment flowed from hon. Members on both sides. We waited full of hope for a reply. Reply there was none. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) initiated an Adjournment debate—he who had himself raised many questions in the Scottish Grand Committee debate. I am told that he gave the hon. Gentleman prior notice of the questions that he intended to ask that night and then allowed the Minister 28 minutes in which to reply. The Minister in fact filibustered his own speech. We waited breathless for the important information upon which hon. Members
could make a judgment, but none of the facts was relayed to us. That is something upon which the Minister will look back with a great deal of regret.
The Scottish Education Department has a world wide reputation, and the Minister has done his best to destroy it in this instance. If he had come clean right at the start and told everyone what they wanted to know of the economic position in relation to the numbers of colleges and teachers, we should have shared with him a constructive effort to try and put matters right. Tonight we try again. The Minister has adequate time tonight, and he can—I hope that he will—reply in the greatest detail.
As I say, the principal cause of this whole unhappy saga was the document relating to the provision of teachers in the future. As a basic premise, we welcome the great improvement in staffing. Indeed, despite the difficult period and particularly the raising of the school-leaving age, it was forecast that it would turn out in the way in which it has. That was in the White Paper. I sometimes wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has read it. It would not be a task of great magnitude to read the only White Paper this century on education, because it is full not of political dogma but of the practical development of education as such. Does it mean, with the economic disasters that have afflicted the Labour Party, that the great opportunity that the Minister had for developing the White Paper has gone for ever? He inherited an opportunity and he has cast it aside.
The Secretary of State for Scotland has also spoken recently on this subject. Again relating this to the number of teachers we require, it is sad indeed that he has turned his back on nursery education—which was in the Labour Party Manifesto in 1974—on nursery nurses, remedial education, in-service training, non-teaching duties, community education, deprived areas, and sport and recreation. The Under-Secretary is the Minister responsible for sport in Scotland. If the Secretary of State had kept on with the programme, all of these things would have been complementary and would have required a rising supply of teachers to come into education in Scotland, and eventually the provision of adequate retirement superannuation.
I shall nip smartly over the next few quotations. I should have loved to give them to the Minister. However, I was rather annoyed that the Secretary of State said on 15th February in the Scottish Grand Committee,
With regard to the pupil-teacher ratio, the last time the Conservative Government said anything about this was in their statement of policy in December 1972."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 15th February 1977; c. 56.]
The Secretary of State must have been terribly badly briefed by the Scottish Education Department. Does he not remember the Estimates debates? I shall not wave all the volumes about. However, I should like to quote what the Labour Party said about increasing the number of students into the colleges of education, and the Scottish Education Department papers—

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may take some guidance on this matter. I shall not go into the background to the discussions that we had prior to the debate, but Mr. Speaker said that passing reference would be allowed to colleges closed or to mergers. I suggest that what the hon. Gentleman has said is more than a passing reference.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I vacated the Chair to enable Mr. Speaker to give his ruling, under the exceptional circumstances in which this debate has arisen, and I heard what Mr. Speaker said. As the Minister has said, Mr. Speaker said that there could be just a passing reference. So far, I have heard nothing at all about superannuation of any kind. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having got the support of Mr. Speaker for this debate, will respect Mr. Speaker's ruling as to what is to be discussed.

Mr. Monro: I certainly shall, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, if you have a chance of checking in Hansard tomorrow, I think that you will find that I have mentioned superannuation about five times.
I am sorry that the Minister should intervene in that way, because it is much better that he should get this matter off his chest rather than sit back with the


whole of Scotland looking at him and feeling that he has his head so deep in the sand that we cannot even see his heels.
In deference to Mr. Speaker's feelings, I shall move over a host of other quotation that I could give on the provision of sufficient teachers to raise the standard of education in Scotland during the period under discussion—between 1970 and 1976. This is confirmed not only in Estimates debates but in Scottish Office briefings and a host of other pamphlets. Therefore, Ministers must not in any way decry what the Conservative Party did to raise the standard of education in Scotland.
The one comment by the Secretary of State about which we were all very sad was his indication, by an interruption, that even if he had a great deal more money he would not do anything about raising the standard of education. In relation to the whole approach to the provision of teachers and, therefore, to the later provision of superannuation, the pupil-teacher ratio is not the end of everything. The minimum class size is much more important when we get down to individual schools.
While in Scotland we have reached our pupil-teacher ratio figures, we have not reached our objective on class sizes. The Minister will have read Circular No. 819 of March 1972, which very clearly indicated that it was a minimum supply of teachers and not a maximum supply. Therefore, he should have seen paragraph 3 of that document and must not try to hide behind that bush either.
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will like what I shall say next. [Interruption.]

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor Mackenzie): I am sure that provided that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is asked questions about superannuation, which in a spirit of good will Mr. Speaker has indicated can be discussed now, he will be only too happy to consider them.

Mr. Monro: I do not think that the Minister of State will save his hon. Friend. Perhaps the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary will bear in mind that the Under-Secretary would not give way in any of these debates. He has made

the most impassioned refusals to give way to other people when he has been speaking, but he does not mind interrupting when others are trying to address the House.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend appreciate that this is the third opportunity that we have given Ministers of the present Government to say something about some aspect—in this case, superannuation—of the details of their proposals for teacher training, and that on every occasion Ministers have tried to avoid giving information, as they appear to be doing once again tonight?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What the hon. Member said is probably correct, but we must consider Class XVII, Vote 4 and the subject to which it refers. What we are debating tonight is what falls under that particular heading. It does not refer to redundancies in colleges. It refers to a situation in which people getting normal retirement pensions retire early. There is no provision made under this heading for discussing the Crombie Report, and the hon. Member knows that full well. I do not think that he will trespass too much on the kindness of the Speaker in making an exception in this case.

Mr. Monro: The number of teachers who have to retire and have their superannuation depends directly on the number of teachers in post. If we are not training sufficient teachers we shall have a different situation—one in which not only will there be an insufficient number in colleges, but under the Minister's programme they will be forced to retire earlier, and more superannuation will be required than would otherwise be necessary.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us get this straight. We are discussing a situation in which members of the scheme are, under the regulations, eligible for pension benefits on retirement, on or after attaining the age of 60. We are not discussing premature retirement, and there is no provision in the regulations before the age of 60, other than in cases of incapacity. That is what we are discussing.

Mr. Monro: But what about those who are unemployed because of the Minister's


action? Will they not get superannuation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall finish on this note. What we are not discussing—and the hon. Member must appreciate the particular distinction—is the question of what happens if colleges close and consequent upon those closures teachers are asked to retire before the normal superannuation. We are not discussing that.

Mr. Monro: That is a point of some argument, but I accept what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, if teachers are forced to retire earlier, inevitably they will require retirement pensions earlier. We have a right to question the Minister on this matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member for Dumfries is deliberately trying to fail to understand the matter. The heading of Class XVII Vote 4 does not cover the situation he has just mentioned.

Mr. Monro: I do firmly believe that the action taken by the Minister will inevitably affect the number of teachers who have to retire. I think that the Minister is wrong in the recommendations he has made in the paper before us. I have said many times that I accept that there has to be a reduction in the number of teachers. That is not the point in argument. But the Minister is wrong in his attitude towards the closure of colleges rather than taking an overall percentage reduction, weighted against Jordanhill College and Moray House, which are the largest colleges.
I will hurry along with my speech as others wish to speak and I do not wish to unduly delay the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The speedier the better.

Mr. Monro: I really do wish to ask the Minister the question that he has dodged so often in the past. I presume that he will try to dodge it yet again tonight. This is indicated by the fact that he raised a point of order before the debate had got under way. The Minister will rue the day that he treated us so offhandedly. He must answer the question about Dunfermline and Craigie and the number of teachers required from these

two colleges. Craigie is of particular importance to South-West Scotland as colleges should always be in the area where the teachers are required. Dunfermline is unique in Scotland and it must be retained as a centre of excellence. Will the Minister spell out the cost of the change to Dundee, which we believe will be catastrophic in relation to both sport and recreation and the supply of physical education teachers?
I hope that the Minister will not opt out once again. He can rest assured that if he does we shall come back on a more broadly based debate until he produces the answers and shows Scotland that his heart is in the right place even if his mind is not.

8.26 p.m.

Mr. George Younger: It is marvellous to behold the glee of the Scottish Office at the way in which they have managed to avoid yet again answering questions on this matter.

Mr. McElhone: rose—

Mr. Younger: No, I shall not give way to the Minister. I shall confine my remarks to the narrow point, and remind the Minister that Mr. Speaker has accepted the subject matter on the notice board, and that it does refer quite clearly to the question of superannuation for teachers whose colleges are subject to closure. I accept Mr. Speaker's ruling in that spirit. I do not intend to speak on the deplorable way in which the Scottish Office has handled this matter. I simply leave that at what I have said in Scottish Grand Committee, and those remarks stand on the record.
It is not possible now to go into the question of the treatment of teachers who come to the age of superannuation, but I am grateful that once again we have brought Scottish Office Ministers kicking and screaming to the House to answer questions about it. Whether we like it or not, there are many teachers who will be relying on superannuation to get them out of financial difficulties. Those getting superannuation may well have been affected by terrible family and personal disruption resulting from the Government's current policies, and those expressed in the consultative document. In that light, we must look at the superannuation we are able to give them.
It is not just a question of the Government doing anything they like to their employees without thought. The Government are quick enough to criticise private industry when it is laying off people or superannuating them. The Government are quick to criticise private industry on that. They jump in and make noises criticising firms such as Plessey, and Scottish Aviation in my constituency, which has had its business decimated by the Government's defence cuts. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that the superannuation of teachers is something that the Government can carry out just as it suits them, without taking account of the fact that every one of these lecturers and other senior people in teacher training colleges has great professional training behind him, has great dedication to his job, and in many cases has a family relying upon him.
One of the most distressing types of case that will need to rely on superannuation in future involves those who will find themselves having to leave work because the college is to be closed, but who previously had good jobs in other teaching training colleges that are not being closed. I know some people who will find that when they come to require superannuation, and so on, they will bitterly regret having left their previous teaching posts, for a better job perhaps, and now find themselves, without any warning, in a college that is about to be closed, and therefore in danger of losing their jobs. Some of them feel bitterly about this and wish that they had never taken the better job, because had they not done so they would now be working in a college with an assured future.
I ask the Minister to come clean about whether the Scottish Education Department is prepared formally to approve a scale of contributions and compensation arrangements for teachers and lecturers in Scotland. As I understand it, from the unions involved, although there are regulations for the English situation, parallel arrangements for the Scottish colleges have not been approved by the Scottish Education Department. I think that that is deplorable. It is another chapter in the deplorable way in which the Minister and the Government have handled this situation.
A consultative document has been produced which everyone thinks is wholly inadequate in both its financial and educational aspects, and now the Government produce this bombshell to the profession, without any regulations which have been approved by the Department and upon which people can rely. The Minister must not be surprised that one of the saddest things about the whole business is that a considerable number of skilled professional people are extremely worried, and more worried than they need be, because they cannot even look at a piece of paper and say, "If the worst happens, these are the superannuation arrangements which the Government are prepared to approve". I hope that the Minister will give us a clear answer on that.
I should like the Minister to tell us what the precise conditions will be for those who are put out of work. Who will decide in each case how an individual teacher or lecturer is affected? Will that be decided by a panel, by a committee, or by the college itself? Who will decide which of the lecturers will be affected? Will it be only those in a college that is closed, or will it be "last in—first out" throughout the system? Has a lecturer who has a long record and a fine career in teaching any right to be given any consideration for continuing that career? Or will it just be pure accident that he happens to be working at one of the colleges that the Minister is to close and he has to go while others continue at work elsewhere? I find that question asked on several occasions. I have met many of those affected in this way.
Then there is the question of the amalgamation of colleges. We can visualise what will happen in the wholly deplorable event of a college being closed, but when a college is amalgamated who will decide which lecturer will have to go on superannuation? Will it be the college, or one of the colleges? Will it be a committee of both colleges, or will the decision be made by the Minister, by the Scottish Education Department, or by a committee involving the unions? Nobody knows. I have asked this question of almost everybody to whom I have spoken, including union representatives, of whom we have seen quite a lot


during the last few weeks, and no one knows the answers to those questions. It is a bad way of treating one's employees to put them in this situation, and I hope that the Minister will be able to clear up as many of these matters as possible.
I now come to the question of the superannuation proper. Are lecturers and teachers in colleges of education who are at or near retiring age to have the normal superannuation provisions applied to them, without any alternative at all? I ask that because there may be some who will lose a small but vital part of their careers. Some are within a year or two of retiring and it is unlikely that they will get other employment, yet they still do not know whether they will get terms to take them to their retirement or whether they must try to eke out their resources until the usual retiring age.
This debate is yet another regrettable chapter in the decisions about reducing the teacher training system in Scotland. We know that the numbers have to be reduced and that the Government have run out of money to finance many other things that we should like to see the colleges go into. [Interruption.] I am not sure what the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) wants to contribute to the debate, but I would humbly point out that there is an established method of doing so.
This is the third or fourth stage of the arrangements which any well-organised Government would have laid down before hand but in which this Government have been found wanting, which are unknown to all those affected and about which, to judge from what he has already said, the Minister is determined to avoid answering questions. That is a bad way to treat people.
Members of Parliament try to fight for their constituents as well as they can, but if they are well treated they will be reasonable. We have never sought to insist that the colleges of education should continue to produce exactly the same numbers of teachers. We have been prepared to be reasonable, but the Government have given us little chance. I am sorry that the Minister should have taken that line I hope that, this evening, he will explain as much as he can about the superannuation arrangements.

Mr. McElhone: For reasons that I have explained to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), the Scottish Office is in no way responsible for the restrictions on this debate.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Member has not helped.

Mr. McElhone: We have gone a lot further than we might have done in encouraging this debate, in that I have had discussions behind the Chair with the hon. Member for Cathcart, when I explained the reasons for the restrictions on the debate. They are in no way the responsibility of the Scottish Office.

Mr. Younger: I am always prepared to accept the good will of the Minister, for whom we all have a great affection, but one cannot extend good will beyond a certain point.
I come back to where I started. Mr. Speaker in his wisdom has accepted this subject for debate as titled. Therefore, I believe that I am entirely justified in asking for answers about superannuation. My constituents are waiting for them and will be very angry if they do not get them.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: The reason that we have made passing reference to the document "Teacher training from 1977 onwards" is not just that the teachers affected are unhappy about it but that it has incensed every teacher and member of staff of a college of education in Scotland. That is the purpose of this continuing debate.
Teachers and college staff are not just angry with the contents of the document, although that is bad enough. The anger stems from what the document fails to state—from the educational, financial and human considerations so blatantly ignored by the document and by the Ministers who presented it to Parliament and to Scotland. It is a document about numbers, not a document about people.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: The Government cannot even count.

Mr. Fletcher: As the hon. Lady says, the Government cannot even count. That seems to be the consensus about the figures, whether one is talking about intake or about superannuation.
Paragraph 46 of the document states
academic staff in colleges should be reduced broadly in proportion to the reduction in student numbers. … Natural wastage will not produce anything like this order of reduction; and redundancies will clearly be necessary.
It is necessary to point out to the Minister that at times of very high unemployment it is not just the unemployed who are concerned. People in employment become increasingly worried about their job prospects and their job security. When a figure of about 400 redundancies is mentioned for 1978–79 in the consultative document, the anxiety of every teacher and every member of teacher training college staff in Scotland is understandably aroused about superannuation and their job prospects.
Paragraph 48 of the document says:
staff made redundant will be eligible to apply for compensation under the Crombie code '.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) pointed out the deficiencies in information available to the unions and to everyone concerned with the recommendations in this document and about the prospects for those who may be made redundant.
The trouble with the consultative document is that it makes recommendations which appear to have been plucked out of the air, for they do not seem to be based on anything like a factual assessment of the costs of redundancy, of superannuation and of so-called mergers. Time and again requests for information on staff costs have been directed to the Secretary of State and to the Minister but they have been rejected. How long does the Minister think he can go on ignoring Parliament and the feelings which are running high in Scotland because of the incompetence of his Department and his reluctance or inability to answer straightforward questions addressed to him by hon. Members? There are no costings of compensation, of superannuation, or of the effect of redundancies on superannuation funds. There is no similar costing information about mergers.
In times of high unemployment and high inflation people worry themselves sick about the adequacy of their pension arrangements. It would be a very stupid person indeed who did not relate his pension prospects to the large number

of redundancies which are being projected in the consultative document. These people must naturally be concerned about the Government's ability and willingness to honour the superannuation arrangements to which people continuing in employment look forward.
When teachers and others read newspaper reports of Government proposals to withdraw retrospectively gratuity arrangements which form part of a contract between the Armed Services and officers on short service commission they rapidly lose faith in the contents of the consultative document and in the good will of Ministers on education or on any other matter, and it makes them very anxious about the integrity of any consultations that Ministers may have and any promises or commitments that may be entered into about their superannuation arrangements.
I am sure that those many hon. Members who have had dealings with representatives of the teaching profession in Scotland will agree that they have never seen people with such a convincing case behaving more responsibly than the staffs of the teacher training colleges in Scotland. 'That is in sharp contrast to the attitude of the Secretary of State. Only last week, I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman that he could visit all four colleges affected in one day. He does not choose to do so. Such a visit would be greatly appreciated by all the staff, who wish to discuss with him superannuation, redundancies and a great many other matters, and who would obviously give the right hon. Gentleman a courteous reception and listen to what he had to say, if, indeed, he himself has any faith in the proposals which he has put before the House. In my view, the staff have shown that they are extremely flexible in the proposals which they have made for the future, and it is a great pity that the Secretary of State and the Minister are utterly inflexible in their attitude.
Above all, teachers would like to see, in response to the many questions which have been put to the Secretary of State and the Minister, a new consultative document setting out realistic proposals properly costed in relation to the whole exercise and the various choices available to the Government, including, in particular, the cost of the proposals for the superannuation funds themselves.


Such a new document, of course, should be laid before Parliament well before any final decisions are reached in this matter.
It has been pointed out already that the Under-Secretary of State, in the half-hour Adjournment debate last week initiated by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), refused to reply to important questions. In so doing, he reduced to tatters his reputation as a considerate Minister. He must know better than most the pressures and concerns among many people in all walks of life in Scotland—the Catholic Church as well as the teaching unions and people not necessarily employed in any aspect of education. Parents, for example, are deeply worried about the whole future of education in Scotland.
Tonight, at no little inconvenience, the House is providing another opportunity for the Minister to speak out in response to the feelings of Scottish people on this issue, to speak out for Scottish education and to answer his critics. If he cannot, he should resign.

8.47 p.m.

Mrs. Margaret Bain: I thought it unfortunate that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) gave an indication in his closing remarks that the people of Scotland had not been interested in education affairs prior to the present situation. That was rather unjust, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to withdraw that remark later.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: I was not aware that I had made any such suggestion. If anything which the hon. Lady thought I said amounted to any such suggestion, of course I withdraw it.

Mrs. Bain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. In normal circumstances, on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, Class XVII Vote 4 would probably pass unnoticed by most hon. Members, and it is therefore important that we bear in mind throughout this debate on the superannuation scheme the current background in Scottish education circles. The present circumstances are abnormal and unacceptable. Never has morale been so low in education in Scotland.
Members of Parliament who have visited, as I have, various colleges in

Scotland in the past year or so have found that morale was slipping long before this document came before us. It has now slipped to an all-time low. Indeed, in some colleges it has reached a point at which lecturers believe that it is not worth their while preparing courses for next year. I regard this as very worrying.
The whole question of superannuation is related to the question of the number of teachers available and how much will be needed in the future for superannuation purposes. In these circumstances, we must again return to the question of staffing standards in Scottish schools and colleges.
The Under-Secretary of State always makes great play of the fact that we no longer have part-time education in Scotland and we have improved standards. It is true that, statistically, there is no longer part-time education and we have improved standards, but those of us who understand what is happening in our schools know that that is not the whole case. In my constituency, the so-called improvement in standards meant that many teachers were sacked and we had reductions in staffing standards. I find it unacceptable that a Labour Government should aim for the lowest common denominator in terms of education.
Only last week, in reply to me, the Under-Secretary of State indicated that he was not prepared to enter negotiations with teacher's unions about staffing standards. The unions find that as unacceptable as do hon. Members. Minimum standards are being adopted as maximum standards, and as far as we can see that situation will continue under this Government. But I do not hold out any great hope for change should there be a Conservative Government after the Conservative Party's proposals for expenditure cuts.
There is the question of enforced early retirement of many lecturers in our colleges. Many of them to whom I have spoken have indicated their concern that the Government have not yet said what they mean by "redeployment". It seems to many of them that there is no possibility of alternative employment for them in education. Given that qualified school teachers cannot find employment, lecturers cannot see themselves being transferred readily to the schools sector.
These people are also interested to know which section of the Crombie Report will apply to them. When the Crombie Report was first introduced for local government officers, it was of a very high standard, but that standard was was reduced when the Department of Education and Science wished to apply it to England and Wales. Lecturers are wondering whether in Scotland it will be reduced yet again. These are aspects that the lecturers must know. We in the Scottish National Party oppose any redundancies whatever, but people at least have the right to know how their superannuation will be affected and what kind of redundancy period will be available to them.
The Scottish National Party cannot accept that there is need even to be discussing this question, because we shall not accept public expenditure cut-backs in Scottish education. On Saturday, at our National Council—one of the main bodies of the SNP—we passed by acclamation a resolution condemning the Secretary of State's action in the consultative document and pledged ourselves to fight the Government's policy because we believe that no Scottish Parliament would wish to treat education in Scotland as this Parliament has treated it.

8.53 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Canavan (West Stirling-shire): I shall be brief, because I realise the constraints upon us as far as relevance is concerned, in that this is the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is essentially a public expenditure document. I think, however, that it is most appropriate for us to be discussing some aspects of the proposed closure of colleges of education in Scotland, and I am glad that Mr. Speaker has given his approval for at least a limited discussion, because basically the Bill is a financial document, and part of the Secretary of State's case, or pseudo-case, is supposedly based on certain aspects of financial expenditure, or saving in that expenditure.
My right hon. Friend told the Scottish Grand Committee on 15th February:
The other criticism being made is that I have not given any precise financial figures of the savings that will occur. Given that the total cost of the college system is more than £20 million a year significant savings will be

made which must eventually run into millions of pounds a year. The exact savings depend on certain factors which cannot be quantified at present. These include, for example, the particular college closures, the number of lecturers who are made redundant and the particular payments to be made to them, which will depend on age, length of service, and the rest."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 15th February 1977; c. 9.]
Clearly, there is a tie-up there between possible financial saving and the superannuation proposals in the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Many of us on both sides of the House have tried, by tabling Questions, to get more background financial information about the Scottish Education Department proposals out of Ministers. Unfortunately that has not been forthcoming. Little wonder that among Back Benchers, and the whole Scottish educational community, there is a feeling that this particular proposal has not been adequately worked out in financial terms.
The Secretary of State has said that we do not want to produce teachers for unemployment. That is fair enough. Nor do we, who criticise the document, want to produce teachers merely to go on the dole queue. But it is surely a nonsense to imagine that we can solve the problem of teacher unemployment, or potential teacher unemployment, by simply closing down certain colleges and merging others and thereby creating lecturer unemployment.
In the initial stages at least, that does not necessarily mean savings in public expenditure, because there will be redundancy payments and possibly superannuation payments under the Consolidated Fund Bill that we are discussing. All of these payments will have to be met. It is doubtful whether in the early stages there will be any net saving at all in public expenditure. It will simply be a transfer of public expenditure from one Government Department to another.
It is doubtful whether many of those well-qualified lecturers will be able to find employment elsewhere. Where else in education will they find employment? It may be easier south of the border where college administration is very much connected with other sectors of educational administration through the local authorities. But it is different in Scotland. The colleges are almost unique in the way in which they are administered
through boards of governors with, of course, the Secretary of State breathing down their necks.
This makes transition from one sector of education to another all the more difficult. Will they be able to find jobs in industry with the way in which industry is going just now, mainly due to lack of vacancies caused by lack of investment? Although a minority of teachers involved may be qualified to take jobs in industry at roughly the same level as they are in education, nevertheless, because of the lack of vacancies at present, it will be very difficult indeed kw them to find employment. The recent EIS survey of college graduates showed how difficult it is to make the transition from education into industry, in the present economic climate. As well as a lack of educational thinking in the SED document, there is also the economic stupidity of redundancies which will inevitably happen and which will cause senseless public expenditure under the terms of the Consolidated Fund Bill and other measures.
I must make a passing reference to the sheer hypocrisy of some hon. Members opposite who shed crocodile tears about the poor lecturers and teachers who will possibly be thrown on the dole with little in the way of alternative employment prospects but possibly something in the way of superannuation benefits and redundancy payments. The proposals that are coming from the Shadow Treasury spokesman are such that the public expenditure cuts that we are having to suffer just now would be almost minimal compared with the savage public expenditure cuts that we would have to suffer if the Leader of the Opposition were now in power.
I also think it is sheer hypocrisy for the Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), to be shedding crocodile tears over the plight of unemployed workers such as teachers and lecturers when he himself is involved with the company which owns the "Globtik Venus", which has exploited underpaid seamen and resorted to actual piracy and threatened violence and which brings British shipping into disrepute. I wonder just how much the hon. Gentleman is paid to be a lackey of this particularly disreputable company?
I return to the subject. We do not train teachers merely to contribute to or collect superannuation as provided in the Consolidated Fund Bill. We train teachers to teach, and there is no educational justification at all for saying that there are not jobs for the teachers. The jobs are there. There are thousands of jobs which newly qualified teachers can be doing and, as such, there is a valuable continuing role for the colleges and for the lecturers in the colleges.
There is no excuse, whether it be financial or educational, for any college closure or merger, and the Secretary of State and his Under-Secretary must take into account the sheer weight of parliamentary opinion and public opinion about the proposals in this document, especially the proposed closure of Craigie and Callendar Park and the proposed mergers of Dunfermline and Craiglockhart with other colleges. There is no educational justification for them, and the economic justification appears to be non-existent. All that they would do is throw more well-qualified people on to the dole queue, leading to a national wastage, which would be a national scandal.
I have already asked the Under-Secretary and his boss to take back this document and think again. I plead with them to come up with more constructive proposals to save the colleges of education, first. because of their vital educational contribution and, secondly, because any financial saving would be negligible, if indeed there were any at all.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As Mr. Speaker rightly said, this is a very restricted debate. The subject which has been chosen for discussion is the increase in the payment of superannuation to teachers made redundant before normal retiring age in teacher training colleges in Scotland.
The Under-Secretary has reminded us twice of this fact by making leaping interventions and explaining that certain vital issues, which unfortunately he was unable to answer, could not be answered in this debate. I simply make the point that he had two unique opportunities to give all the information about every aspect of this deplorable consultative document. He had the opportunity of the two-day debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. He


had the opportunity of an Adjournment debate when he had 28 minutes in which to talk. In one case he avoided giving any information by making what appeared to be almost a filibustering speech. Once again he is taking the opportunity to avoid giving any information, this time by exploiting the rule book.
However, even within the restricted nature of the debate, there are several questions which need to be answered, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will deal with them on this occasion. My hon. Friends and I have raised the subject because we want some information.
The Minister must accept that this is a consultative document which has been handed out so that people may consider it and its implications. Therefore, we need to have information about the arguments behind the document and the alternatives which might be proposed. The Minister has failed singularly to outline any of the arguments both on earlier occasions and tonight.
The second reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has taken the unusual step of coming here to speak in this debate when he has a very high temperature and is suffering severely from 'flu is to emphasise how we all regard the Government's proposals as utterly unacceptable. The Government's proposals have been rejected by everyone. Therefore, we feel that once again we should make it clear that the proposals are utterly unacceptable.
This is a restricted subject, but we want to know the cost implications for superannuation in the proposals outlined in the Government's document. The Minister said that the Government would save a lot of money with their proposals on teacher training. We have been trying to find how precisely money was to be saved. As far as we can see from the figures available, it will not be saved on the mergers and transfers.
The Minister will have received from Dunfermline College a letter stating that that college has made careful estimates of what the so-called savings will be. Dunfermline College was opened only in 1966 at a cost of £1.3 million. The college estimates that to transfer to Dundee College, as has been suggested, would cost

in excess of £1 million and involve three years' work, so there is no saving there. The proposals for Craiglockhart have also been looked at carefully to see where money would be saved in the appalling proposal for the merging and virtual destruction of this college. Here again we cannot see any saving.
Turning to Craigie College my hon. Friend has eloquently put forward arguments against its closure. It is the only college in the South-West of Scotland, and the cost of closing it and having the students move elsewhere will mean extra cost, not less. When we look at Callendar Park, here again we cannot see where the savings are. That is why we have been probing the cost to see whether there are any savings in any area at all.
It could well be that there are savings because the Government have said that about 76 per cent. of the costs involved in running the colleges are teachers' salaries and related costs, which no doubt includes superannuation. I hope that the Government will give the facts on what would be the effect on superannuation costs if their proposals were implemented. We are entitled to know, and the teachers are entitled to have some indication of what will be the effect on their income and their future income if these proposals go ahead.
The Government are well aware that promises made by Governments are unfortunately not looked on with a great deal of confidence, particularly after the disgraceful action of the Ministry of Defence, where pledges to those who took commissions were broken. On the question of teachers who are to be made redundant, the only indication that we have had from the Government was that the Crombie Code regulations would apply. That issue was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook). He said:
I understand that ACCES, the teachers' union, was given a commitment that the Crombie Code regulations would be laid before the House in December of last year. We now have the consultative document which suggests 400 redundancies among teachers, yet we do not have the Crombie Code either negotiated in agreement with the union or in the form of a draft statutory instrument before the House. That is a very unsatisfactory situation."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee,15th February 1977; c. 21.]


That was one request made in Committee asking the Minister what was the position on superannuation and other benefits for those who would be made redundant under the proposals. Unfortunately, although the Minister made a long speech, he said nothing about that at all.
In a public service, particularly in the teaching profession, superannuation is not just an operational extra that one receives when one retires. It is very much a part of the pay and conditions of service in such professions. It is very important today to know what will be the effect of these proposals on superannuation.
It would help if we had some indication of how many teachers will be compulsorily retired and how many will receive superannuation because they are retiring through normal wastage. The Government have said little on the subject. In the consultative document it was said that at present there were 1,417 teachers. That figure will have to be reduced for several reasons: if the college closures and mergers go ahead; if there are fewer students; if the Bachelor of Education course is to be abolished; and if the Government meant what they said about the overmanning of colleges. The Secretary of State stated in Committee:
They will see that there is a considerable margin, and there are more lecturers in college at present than we can reasonably and adequately occupy."—[Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 15th February 1977; c. 55.]
If the Secretary of State means that there will obviously be a very substantial reduction.
I think that it was the Minister who estimated that if the 10-to-one student-teacher ratio were applied, the figure of 1,417 would come down to 875 in 1977–78 and again to 812 in 1980. There was reference in the consultative document which said that instead of that the figure might be 1,000 in 1978–79. Whichever way we look at that, it means a lot of redundancy. It could mean 200, 300 or 400 redundancies, but we do not know what the figure will be until the Government give us some indication.
It would help us in dealing with superannuation if the Government would say how many teachers they would expect to retire at the normal retirement age.

What is the element of natural wastage, apart from those who are leaving the profession to go elsewhere, likely to be? If the Minister could give us that figure, which he cannot deny is directly relevant to what we are discussing tonight, we might get some indication of how many extra redundancies there might be.

Mr. Douglas Crawford: In view of the wish of the Leader of the Opposition to have even more public expenditure cuts, may we have a guarantee that the Conservative Party is totally opposed to any further cuts in education and to any further redundancies in Scotland? If his party were in power, would it be cutting the education colleges or would it be continuing them and expanding them?

Mr. Taylor: I do not want to get out of order, but I shall say in passing that the cuts that a Conservative Government would impose would be infinitely different from those imposed by this Government. I have given many examples of the kind of things we would cut. One of the most obvious is the nationalisation programme. I should like to cut the SNP as well. We have always made it clear—and we are honest, unlike the SNP—that we do not say that every college lecturer should be retained in post. We have made it clear that we believe that the number of students going into the colleges needs to be reduced. It would not have been such a big cut if the Minister had been sensible and had not reduced the numbers last year.

Mrs. Bain: Whether or not the number of students going into the colleges remains the same, there is no need to make any lecturer in Scotland redundant if we are to diversify the education system and to keep it in the van of educational thinking.

Mr. Taylor: If we had more information, we might be able to give an answer to that, but we do not have these facts. We believe that there is a case for additional teachers in areas of deprivation which have suffered from teacher shortages for a long time and which have seen a great deal of part-time education. This would make a difference to the figures. We are arguing as strongly as we can, however, that the closure of four colleges, or the closure of two and the merging of


two, is not the right answer. We believe that the answer is to have scaling down elsewhere, if it is required. We believe that that is a preferable option, but before we decide, we want information about the costs involved, with the alternatives and the extra cost saving if we retain the 10 colleges and scale the system down to the major colleges. We should like information. This is a consultative document and the Government should therefore give us the absolute maximum of information.

Mr. Younger: Does my hon. Friend not agree also that if the present Government had not ruined the country with their wild spending spree over the last two years the money would be available for making the improvements that we all wish in education.

Mr. Taylor: I am sure that the SNP would at least accept that when the Conservatives are in power we can create the economic growth which makes additional, well-directed public spending possible. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the enormous strides made in social and educational progress when the Conservative Party was in power. This was most obvious after the efforts by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries, as education Minister in the Scottish Office, to make sure that the teachers would be available as soon as possible to eradicate part-time education.
I have a number of detailed questions to put. If a college lecturer were made redundant, what would be his position in terms of superannuation if he went into other public service? Say, for example, he is unable to get a job in teacher training, but manages to get a job in a school, in a social work department with a local authority, or perhaps in a List D school. Would he be able to continue making superannuation payments and be no worse off than if he had carried on as a teacher in training college?
This is the kind of question which we should be asking. The Minister must be aware of just how unhappy the staff in the colleges are about what is happening, about the plans and the lack of detail. I want to read from paragraph 14 of an excellent document which we have all received from Craiglockhart:

Members of staff are also uninformed about how the reduction of the total lecturing force by over 400 is to be carried through. There is no reason why the Secretary of State should not have stated explicitly that any staff reduction policy would be applied equally to all colleges, including those he proposes to merge or close—unless there was an intention in this way to exploit different interests among the staffs of the different colleges and paralyse union resistance. The omission of such an explicit statement, apart from its injustice to staff of this College, makes it very difficult for the Governors to assess the merits of the case for mergers.
This is the nub of the arguments which my hon. Friends have put forward in three successive debates. The Government have a duty to justify their proposal. They have not done this on the basis of education or cost. We hope that the Government will try to put forward an argument, perhaps on the grounds of cost, to support their proposals and also to give us the information on which we can assess the various options.
This consultative document has caused a great deal of concern in Scotland. It has resulted in a savage drop in educational morale not just in the colleges but throughout the educational system. We all know that if its proposals were applied there would be an immense danger to education in Scotland and to our whole long-term ability to get an adequate supply of teachers when we require an increase in them.
The Minister is aware that this document has not one friend in Scotland in educational circles or elsewhere. I hope that tonight at least, as he has failed so miserably on the last two occasions, he will give us some of the answers to the questions on the restrictive area which we have been debating.

9.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I shall begin by putting the record straight once again because there has been a scandalous allegation from the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) that the Scottish Office was using this opportunity to dodge answering questions. Despite the discussions I have had with the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), it is typical that he should say, despite the explanations he has received, that I was exploiting the rule book, or that the Scottish Office was. Hon. Members know very well—it is a disgraceful act on their


part—that the Scottish Office had no part in restricting this debate. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) looked through the Estimates to try to find a vehicle on which to come before the House and initiate a debate. We pointed out on Friday to the appropriate authorities that under this Vote it was not possible. I could easily point out quite factually that under Class XVII, Vote 4, the Crombie Report cannot be discussed. It does not come under that class. Nevertheless, in the interests of the debate, I decided that we should attempt to make—

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not the hon. Member disputing the ruling of the Chair to allow this debate to go forward? Would it not be better if he replied to the debate rather than put himself in your position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): I think that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the Crombie Code is covered by Class XVII, Vote 4, which I understand is not the case.

Mr. McElhone: I do not want the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) to make cheap political points when he knows that his party was in the wrong from the beginning. It is most unworthy of the hon. Member or for other hon. Members to take advantage or to try to insinuate that advantage is being taken of the Chair.
The Scottish Office in no way tried to restrict the debate, the basic answer to which I could give in about three sentences, in accordance with the Vote. We were not trying by any mechanism, constitutional or otherwise, to dodge any particular debate that might arise on the Vote.

Mr. Younger: If the Minister is sincere, as I am sure he is, it was unwise of him to leap to his feet at the first opportunity to try to prevent us from discussing these matters. Am I to understand that he knew on Friday that the debate could not be held and got in touch with somebody about that? Did he not have the courtesy to tell those hon. Members whose names were down to this subject? It would have been the most elementary courtesy to tell them,

but none of us knew anything about this until tonight.

Mr. McElhone: I would not have raised the matter but for the credibility of the Scottish Office being impugned by hon. Members. I do not want to make this a debate on the reliability of the Public Bill Office. That would be most unfair to people who cannot answer back. But the hon. Member for Cathcart can make the hon. Gentleman aware of the circumstances. I think that it is sufficient to say that I am prepared to respond to the debate as far as I can.
There was no possibility that the Scottish Office could attempt to restrict the debate. I waited several minutes while the hon. Member for Dumfries waffled on in his predictable way, casting all sorts of slights on me and others. No reference had been made to the nature of the debate.

Mr. Monro: Will the Minister withdraw that statement if it is in tomorrow's Hansard?

Mr. McElhone: In the end, the hon. Gentleman was following a course which was against Mr. Speaker's original ruling.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that we are not complaining about the Scottish Office and far less about our excellent Deputy Speaker, in whom we have full confidence? We are complaining about the Minister's attitude. If he were genuinely seeking to give information and help us, his interest would surely be to try to get the most out of the restricted debate. Instead, from the moment my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) started, the Minister was trying to restrict the debate and usurp the function of the Chair. We accept the problems of a restricted debate, but if the hon. Gentleman wanted to give information to the people of Scotland and teachers who may be made redundant, he should be trying to make the most of the restricted subject and not to restrict it further.

Mr. McElhone: I do not wish to make this a constitutional debate. I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for reminding the House that the debate centred on the question of Crombie and the laying of the order, and in no way can Crombie be debated under this Vote.


Nevertheless, I am trying to be reasonable to the Opposition, who have been totally unreasonable ever since the debate started. The Conservative Opposition's tactics have been shameful. They have not tried to put forward an alternative strategy for compensation for redundancy. By referring to compensation and redundancy I am keeping within order. I should have to stray very far if I tried to match them. We still await from the Conservatives suggestions about compensation and superannuation and an alternative strategy to the document.
The hon. Member for Cathcart said that there would be no cuts in education under the Conservatives, that they would make the cuts in other forms of public expenditure. I should like to quote from their much-hallowed document. They get very annoyed when I keep quoting it back at them. On page 17 of "Education in Scotland: A Statement of Policy" we read:
The Circular indicated the Government's view"—
the Tory Government—
that once these standards had been achieved "—
that is, a pupil-teacher ratio of 25: 1 for primary schools, and we have 22.4:1—
any additional resources should not be used to expand further the primary teaching force".
The second point is that when a ratio of 15: 1 is reached in secondary schools in 1977–78 it
may involve placing some restriction on the number of graduates entering teacher training.
In other words, the document envisaged unemployment among teachers and the curtailment of teacher training well in excess of anything which might be contemplated by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Monro: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McElhone: No, I do not intend to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Monro: rose—

Mr. McElhone: I shall not give way at this point. When I asked the hon. Gentleman to give way, in order to make an important point, he did not give way. Therefore, I hope that he will accept that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Never in my experience of politics has there been so much consultation as on the future of teacher training. We had a two-day debate on the subject. I have gone out of my way to see many Opposition Members either as a group or with delegations from various colleges for which I knew they would get a certain amount of publicity. With my right hon. Friend, I met several groups involved in this exercise. My right hon. Friend is meeting the principals of colleges of education today. I shall be seeing a number of bodies this week, including COSLA, the National Union of Students, teachers' unions' leaders and others. My hon. Friend will also be meeting the hierarchy over the question of Craiglockhart, and other matters.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Will these consultations produce a completely new document which will be laid before Parliament?

Mr. McElhone: We must not split hairs. This is a consultative document. It is there for everyone to read. We have consulted well beyond any consultations carried out by any previous Government. This is a serious exercise. Both the Opposition and the Government start from the premise that there must be reductions.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Yes.

Mr. McElhone: The Opposition cry for reductions, which involve redundancies and compensation. I am endeavouring to keep within order. It is inevitable, given the reduction in births, that there will be fewer pupils. In fact, there will be 100,000 fewer primary pupils between now and 1980–81. Therefore, it stands to reason that there must be constraints on the intake in teacher training.
I cannot understand why the Conservative Opposition go on making every political point they can in the hope of getting some extra votes at the next General Election when they have consistently refused to put forward an alternative educational strategy. That is totally dishonest. I lay that charge at the door of the Conservative Opposition. There is no point in squealing consistently. The people of Scotland will reject mere indignation and this exercise in the hope of getting extra votes. I suggest that the Opposition's duty is to accept, as they do, that there


will be cut-backs in teacher training and to put forward an alternative strategy.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that we have said that our preferred policy would be to retain the 10 colleges if that were justified by costing? We must have the Government's costing estimate and the effect in other terms of maintaining the 10 colleges, albeit on a reduced scale, and of having the six colleges.
In view of what the Minister has said about consultation, can he give us an assurance that if the Government, on looking at the matter again, find that their proposals are wrong, they might scrap them and put forward others that would not involve any closures? I do not ask the Minister to commit himself.

Mr. McElhone: Decisions are made by the Secretary of State, although there was a pitiful Early-Day Motion tabled by the Opposition calling for my resignation. I am involved at every stage in the consultation and the decision making, but the hon. Member should know, having been an Under-Secretary of State himself, that I do not make the decisions. I should have looked silly if I had put down an Early-Day Motion calling on the hon. Member for Cathcart to resign when his party was in Government when I knew that the responsibility lay with his right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State.
There is no point in hon. Members pressing us for consultations because the same hon. Members were involved in a Government who were ready to destroy Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and Rolls-Royce without any consultation. The Opposition have not got a good record for consultation, compensation or redundancies.
I am the first to recognise that we are involved in a difficult exercise. We accept that there must be reductions and we must therefore ask where we should make them—in a number of colleges or by doing as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart suggested and keeping all the colleges as they are. No options are closed in this exercise. [Interruption.] Hon. Members accuse me of not answering questions but they cannot have listened to the debate properly or read the report of the Adjournment debate recently because on that occasion I
answered questions put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell).

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. McElhone: I will not give way at the moment.

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. McElhone: I have already given way four times although hon. Members accuse me of not giving way. I hope that that challenge will not be repeated.
I return to the substance of the debate and I hope that I may stray into the question of Crombie, with the permission of the House. [Interruption.] When one has issued a consultative document and asked the colleges and many other bodies for information about how they see the future of the colleges in Scotland, it would be nonsense and arrogance to lay down conditions for the period of consultation. The Opposition have never had any experience of consultation. The lesson of the miners should have taught them that.
The colleges, the trade unions and the teaching profession recognise that the Government are bending over backwards to consult everybody who is involved in the exercise That has never been done before and it has been welcomed by all the groups to whom I have spoken.
For the record, Class XVII, Vote 4, is the vote that covers superannuation payments to members of the Scottish Teachers' Superannuation Scheme under the Teachers Superannuation (Scotland) Regulations 1969–76. There are lecturers in colleges of education in Scotland who are members of the scheme and who, under the regulations, are eligible for pension benefits on retirement on or after attaining the age of 60, which may be the "normal retiring age" mentioned in the subject for debate. There is, however, no provision under the for the payment of superannuation benefits before the age of 60, other than in cases of incapacity.
In referring to an increase—and that is what the debate has done—in payment for teachers made redundant before normal retiring age, hon. Members may have in mind the compensation which will be available to redundant college lecturers under the Crombie Code. No provision for such compensation has
been made in the current financial year as the whole question of redundancies will have to be the subject of detailed consultations in the light of my right hon. Friend's decisions on the future size and shape of the teacher training system. In any case, compensation payments under the Crombie Code are certainly not a charge on Class XVII, Vote 4, and irrespective of at what age teachers might he redundant, there is no question of paying increased superannuation on that account. That is in statute. It is not something that I can change overnight.
The question of laying the code conditions in order that the lecturers who might be involved—I stress the word "might"—will understand that we are showing some good faith in this matter and that they will have some understanding as to the future has been alluded to often in the debate. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may briefly refer to Crombie in order to clear the doubts and concern expressed by hon. Members, supposedly on behalf of lecturers and others involved in colleges of education that they have met in delegations to the House and in meetings that they have attended in Edinburgh and elsewhere.
Crombie terms are available on redundancy only where there is "statutory intervention" in employment. The Secretary of State's decision to make regulations under paragraph 11 of Schedule 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1976 to require governing bodies to comply with directions made by him about college intakes will set in train such statutory interventions.
In the Department's letter of 17th January enclosing the Secretary of State's consultative paper about the future of teacher training, interested bodies were consulted about the Secretary of State's intention to make such regulations. The body most affected by this proposal, the Joint Committee of Colleges of Education—incidentally, my right hon. Friend met that group in Edinburgh this afternoon—has already indicated its agreement to the making of the proposed regulations. I hope that that will satisfy hon. Members to some extent.
The regulations have already been drafted. I put this point particularly to the hon. Member for Ayr, who, I am

sorry to say, got the information wrong. The regulations might be made in March or April after comments from other bodies have been received. There is another piece of particular information that was requested strongly by the hon. Member for Ayr.
When the Secretary of State has decided how many students should be admitted to colleges, and to which colleges, in the autumn of this year, directions will be prepared to put these decisions into effect. The boards of governors will, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, have to be consulted. This is another point that has been put strongly this evening and on other occasions. This consultation need not be prolonged since the views of the boards of governors will be given in response to the Secretary of State's paper of 17th January. The Secretary of State met that body in Edinburgh today, as I have already told the House.
Another set of regulations will have to be made to authorise the payment of the Crombie terms. Undertakings have been given that interested bodies will be consulted on these regulations. We cannot go much further than that. We have given the promise of delivering the Crombie Code to any college lecturers who might be made redundant in Scotland. We expect to circulate the draft of the regulations in April.
The ALCES—the college lecturers—will have an opportunity, before the regulations are drafted, to have consultations and that is all they are seeking. Of course, we shall be as reasonable as possible in meeting the requests that they make.
The view has been expressed to me—wrongly—that the Crombie regulations will apply only to redundant lecturers. But the provisions will apply generally to all those employed in the undertakings affected—that is, the colleges. That means that they will apply to the nonacademic staff—the technicians, the janitors, the cleaners, and so on.
The draft regulations and the compensation terms cannot be prepared until my right hon. Friend has actually taken a decision on the consultative document. At the end of the day it is extremely difficult in talking about compensation to decide a precise sum. It depends on the


areas of service, the grade and the age of the particular person. One could have 200 or 300 permutations and come out with a different answer each time. Who knows which staff and how much service is involved? No final decision has yet been made on any particular college.
I will not drift hack into the Adjournment debate that we had last week, and the points that were put very strongly by the hon. Member for West Lothian. I answered fully the points he put both then and in the Scottish Grand Committee. The fact that he chose to take only two minutes and that I had to speak for 28 minutes was unfortunate, but that was his choice in conducting the debate. and I chose to respond in the proper way.
The hon. Member for Ayr asked what would happen to lecturers nearing retirement age. He asked whether they would get only superannuation benefits. Lecturers made redundant before the age of 65 are eligible for compensation under the Crombie Code. Many teachers choose to retire from 60 onwards.
I hope the hon. Member will accept that I am not here to encourage prolonged or acrimonious debates. I understand the uncertainty of the staffs who may be involved, but this is a genuine consultation process in which I hope an alternative strategy will be forthcoming from the Opposition. 'I he final decision will be made by my right hon. Friend only after he has carefully scrutinised the submissions which he has asked various colleges and other bodies to make to him.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Secretary of State also take into account the fact that the Government's proposals were defeated in the Scottish Grand Committee? Even discounting the English invasion towards the end of the sitting, the majority of Members representing Scottish constituencies voted against the document.

Mr. McElhone: I take my hon. Friend's point. That was a somewhat unfortunate, if not disgraceful, exercise, and perhaps those who engineered it are somewhat sorry that they carried it out.

Mr. William Small: I hope that the same people will defeat Crombie.

Mr. McElhone: I leave that for the record. My hon. Friend, who has taken

a great interest in the matter, can express views on the consultative document, but he does not have the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) who was a teacher before being elected to this House.

Mr. Monro: The hon. Gentleman keeps saying that he wants consultation, but the only reasonable basis upon which Members of the House can consult is if they know the economic facts. Will the Minister give the facts about closures and retentions? Only then can we make a positive contribution to the debate.

Mr. McElhone: I hope that I do not have to repeat what I have said on this issue. This is essentially not an economic argument but an educational one. Let us not go back on what we have agreed. We cannot continue training teachers for the unemployment register. That is agreed, and therefore there has to be some restriction on numbers.
It is true, of course, that costings come into the issue, but I have pointed out that we are going through a genuine process of consultation. The difficulty is that Conservative Members have never understood the process of consultation. They have never carried out much consultation with the trade unions, with local authorities or with staff bodies.
The hon. Member for Cathcart asked what would happen to the superannuation of a lecturer who became a teacher or a social worker. If he became a teacher he could remain in the teachers' superannuation scheme. If he became a local authority social worker he could transfer his benefit rights. Some people have expressed concern about what will happen, and that is the proper answer to the point made by the hon. Member for Cathcart. I assure the House that no final decisions will be made by my right hon. Friend before he has considered all the representations from colleges and other bodies—

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: What about Members of Parliament?

Mr. McElhone: —and from Members of Parliament because, believe it or not, my right hon. Friend reads the speeches of right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the Minister give us an assurance—if he can he will make us very much happier at the end of this debate—that when he has had the consultations and worked out his sums he will present to the House the alternative costing of a scheme to keep open the 10 colleges and the ones in his consultative document, so that we can work out the sums? If he can give that assurance, we can leave this long debate feeling a great deal happier than we would other-wise do.

Mr. McElhone: I will certainly put that point of view to my right hon. Friend. I have bent over backwards to be fair tonight because of the genuine concern expressed here and outside. All

points of view will be considered carefully by my right hon. Friend. The ultimate decision will be made in the best interests of education; that is, of the students who have left colleges and are still seeking employment—that is a distressing feature—of the students coming out of the colleges this session who hope to become teachers in Scotland and of the lecturers who have done a magnificent job in training our teachers. We are very concerned about their future.
At the end of the day, the decision will rest with my right hon. Friend, assisted by myself and his advisers. We hope that the House will accept that it will be taken in the best interests of Scottish education.

Orders of the Day — STUDENT AWARDS

9.51 p.m.

Sir George Young: After a rather rowdy debate by Scottish Members on teacher training, I hope that English Members can address themselves to a similar problem in a slightly more orderly way.
The expenditure by the Government on grants for students to attend teacher training colleges is closely linked with the Government's strategy on the training of teachers and their proposals, announced on 24th January, to reduce to 45,000 the number of places in our teacher training colleges. My own concern is that the increased grants which appear on page 249 of the Consolidated Fund Bill will not be able to be spent at Thomas Huxley College in my constituency, since that college is threatened with closure. It is this change in the pattern of expenditure under the Consolidated Fund that I wish to raise tonight.
I must confess to surprise at Thomas Huxley featuring in the list of proposed closures, since, in a report in 1975 to the Chief Education Officer of Ealing, Mr. H. A. Harding of the Department of Education and Science said:
We recognise that Thomas Huxley has done much very good work in the past and has in particular a record of B.Ed. successes which is remarkable for a small College catering for mature students. Moreover, we appreciate the College's local importance as the only teacher training establishment in the four London Boroughs of Ealing, Brent, Harrow and Hillingdon. It would clearly be wrong to underestimate its contribution to easing teacher supply problems in London or its potential role in meeting induction and in-service training needs in the areas of the four Boroughs. In principle, therefore, we agree with you that it would be desirable to find some means of retaining an initial teacher training base in Ealing".
We therefore have a statement from the DES that Thomas Huxley College is a successful one, which ought to be retained. I shall develop the argument in a moment, quantifying its success, but I must tell the Minister at the outset that the great debate on education in my consituency is in fact whether the Government are going to go ahead with the closure of this popular and successful training college. In the eyes of my constituents, the action of the Government in
seeking to close this College speaks far louder than any words in any regional conference, and simply convinces them that, despite protestations to the contrary, education is fairly low down the Government's priorities.
My constituents are also struck by the number of closures proposed by the Secretary of State in Conservative-held constituencies. It is a statistical convenience, to put it mildly, that of the 26 closures in England, 20 are in Conservative-held seats. Of the six that are in Labour-held seats, half are held by members of the Government who are not therefore in a position to protest. There is inevitably a suspicion of political expedience in the incidence of these closures, and it would be most unfortunate if the future of our teacher training institutions were to be subject to micro-political influence of this kind.
My hon. Friends and I are prepared to take our share of the increased unemployment which the Government are creating, but we are not anxious to take other people's share as well. Since we hold fewer than half the seats in England, we find it rough to take over three-quarters of the cuts, and I notice the same political bias manifesting itself in the proposals for Scotland and Wales.
I turn firstly to the academic record of Thomas Huxley College. It has a very low percentage wastage of students, and this is an important consideration if money is not to be lost by training people who do not complete the course. The total number of students registered for certificate examination up till June 1977 was 772, and the percentage wastage was 14·3 per cent. This is well below the national average of around 20 per cent. for 1976 and is evidence of the college's ability to select students with potential, and to hold their interest throughout the course.
Looking at the Certificate in Education results for examinations for 1976, over 20 per cent. of students were awarded marks of distinction in the theory of education —well above the national average. The failure rate was under 5 per cent. The B.Ed. results are also very good, as are the awards of distinction in other subjects apart from education theory.
Another important measure of academic success is whether the teachers


are snapped up by schools in the locality. The output of Thomas Huxley College is in great demand at local schools in Ealing. I would like to quote a letter written to me by Mr. Childs, the headmaster of Derwentwater Middle School in my constituency:
As a headmaster whose school has been well served by Thomas Huxley in the past, I fully support the retention of teacher training in the Ealing College of Education which is to be established on 1st September 1977. I would add that the value of preparing mature students to serve the special needs of urban, multi-cultural schools together with the contribution made by the College in the training of teachers for the shortage areas of maths, science and French, is such that it is foolhardy to destroy the expertise which has been acquired in these areas over many years by Miss Carter and her staff.
May I also quote from the headmaster of Reynolds High School, a comprehensive school in my constituency:
The quality of the students which have come from this College over the years and of those members of my staff who trained there is of the highest standard.
He went on to say that he urged
the Secretary of State to reconsider her decision in the light of professional and academic achievements of students from Thomas Huxley College, and the contribution of the college to the educational service in both initial and in-service training in an area of Greater London not served by any other institution providing such courses.
I have also received a large number of letters from students, both past and present, endorsing the remarks of those two headmasters. Indeed, the headmasters of 36 schools in West London who employ teachers from Thomas Huxley have sent the Secretary of State a petition urging her to reconsider her decision on the closure. One reason why this college is so popular is that the students are mature students.
I come now to the role of mature students in our schools. At a time when the Prime Minister is opening a national debate on education, and when the education service is criticised for paying insufficient attention to the needs of industry and commerce, it is short sighted to close initial teacher training in an institution sited in an urban industrial part of London, which recruits students with experience of industry and commerce. Fifty-five per cent. of students entering Thomas Huxley College in September 1976 had such commercial or industrial

experience. Further, at a time when there is anxiety about discipline in schools, we ought to be placing greater emphasis on the recruitment of mature students. Many mature students have had experience of bringing up their own families, and of the disciplinary measures that are most effective. Older people, in any case, are better able to keep order in a classroom than younger students, with less experience of life. The environment at Thomas Huxley of mature students is particularly conducive to in-service training.
The Secretary of State has made it clear that she wishes to see an increased emphasis on in-service training and I put it to her that a college of higher education such as Thomas Huxley, containing a high proportion of mature men and women, provides a more suitable climate for most in-service work than the average college with a large 18-plus intake. The particular ethos of a mature student centre, with its adult relationships, is likely to prove more attractive to qualified teachers.
The Secretary of State will also wish to concentrate teacher training on the shortage subjects, where there is great public concern. Approximately one-third of the total number of students at Thomas Huxley are following main subjects in the three shortage areas of mathematics, science and French. In addition to these, approximately one-third of the students take a special subsidiary course in the teaching of mathematics. This is an additional reason for having second thoughts about the closure of Thomas Huxley and continuing to make grants available in the forthcoming year.
I turn now to a criterion raised specifically by the Secretary of State in her statement on 24th January 1977.
In formulating these proposals the Government have been very conscious of the need to preserve a significant number of large teacher training units sited in areas of educational difficulty, which should be capable of developing as centres of excellence in aspects of teacher education particularly relevant to the problems, such as education within a multi-racial society…".
If ever a society was multi-racial, it is the society in the London Borough of Ealing, where in Southall we have one of the densest concentration of Indians in the country, and in the eastern part of the borough, which I represent, we have a large number of West Indians, in


addition to a significant number of Indians, Poles and other ethnic minorities.
The Minister of State will be the first to realise the problems which this poses for the schools in the area. Thomas Huxley College has developed courses specifically to tackle the needs of the schools in West London, which are grappling manfully with the diverse backgrounds of the children who are being educated. I have myself sat in on one of these multi-cultural courses at Thomas Huxley, and I am convinced that they play a priceless role in helping teachers to integrate the immigrate community into our society and also in explaining the cultures of the ethnic minorities to the indigenous population.
The skills acquired by the teachers at the training college and the courses themselves have been developed over many years to reflect local needs, and we stand to lose both.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but, as he has probably noticed, I have been looking at Subhead F1 under which he has put down his subject—
Increased provision for mandatory awards for students following courses of teacher training".
The whole of the hon. Gentleman's speech seems to be presented on the basis of whether a college is to be kept open, and this is not a debate on the closure of colleges; it is on awards for students.

Sir G. Young: The point which I am trying to develop, Mr. Speaker, is that these awards should continue to be made available to students who are attending one college in my constituency. As I understand it, the sum under debate is over £5 million, that is, grants to local education authorities of 90 per cent. of net expenditure on mandatory awards, which includes awards to recognised students following courses of teacher training. It is part of that sum of money which is currently directed to the London Borough of Ealing, and the proposal to withdraw it threatens the existence of Thomas Huxley College in my constituency.
I hope that, in so arranging my speech, I have been in order in raising in relation to this sum of money the threat to a particular college in my constituency. Perhaps I may say that I am drawing

my remarks to a close, if that helps you in any way, Mr. Speaker.
I invite the Minister to read some of the speeches which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been making about the inner cities, their problems and the solutions. If the Government are really to tackle some of these social problems, a Department of State such as the Department of Education and Science, when making decisions about where to spend money on mandatory awards to students, must take account of the needs of those areas and not close institutions which are situated within them.
I come now to my penultimate point, that is, the geographical implications of the awards. In her statement on 24th January, the Secretary of State said:
Care should be taken to make adequate provision for mature students."—[Official Report, 24th January 1977; Vol. 924, c. 963–79.]
I understand that mature students receive grants under this Subhead. Yet the Secretary of State has proposed to close a mature students' college in Greater London. How she reconciles that with her statement on 24th January that "care must be taken to make adequate provision" is something which we may learn in this debate.
Not only is greater London to lose its training provision for mature students, but for West London the remaining colleges of higher education which will retain teacher training are in Hounslow, Buckingham and West Hertfordshire, which are virtually inaccessible, whereas the college in my constituency is readily accessible by public transport, and is particularly suited to students on nonresidential courses, which the Government are seeking to encourage.
May I end by pulling together the threads of my argument and suggesting what the Secretary of State should now do to make amends. First, she should make clear that she will back success in our teacher training colleges by ensuring that the good ones stay open and the not-so-good close. There is public concern about—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he is stretching the argument far beyond what is reasonable. We must talk about student awards here,


not keeping colleges open, which would be under another subhead.

Sir G. Young: I draw my remarks to a close, Mr. Speaker, by making a final plea that the amount of money we are debating will continue to be spent in broadly the way it is now spent, and that included as a recipient will be the London Borough of Ealing so that Thomas Huxley College can remain in existence.

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees: I, too, wish to devote myself to Class X Subhead F of the supplementary Supply Estimates down for debate. I do not propose to raise the interesting fundamental question of the correct number of teachers for the education system at present, or the pupil-teacher ratios, but, within the rules of order, I wish to concentrate on one particular problem which is of great concern to the ratepayers and taxpayers of Kent and to the Kent Education Authority.
I do that for much the same reason as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), and I hope that you, Mr. Speaker, will find me within the rules of order, because this subhead is concerned with mandatory grants for teacher training by local education authorities. So it concerns not only the quantum of boys and girls processed through the colleges of education but also the weight of expenditure in any particular local education area.
I shall be indicating certain reasons why I do not feel that the proposal of the Secretary of State accords with the Supplementary Estimate that the House is debating. I shall, of course, be, I hope, ever ready to keep myself within your injunction to my hon. Friend, and I hope that, with this prelude, I shall gain your indulgence.

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I say how grateful I am to the hon. and learned Gentleman in advance? I am casting my bread upon the waters, and I hope that it will return in due course. He will, I know, confine himself to student awards, which is the subhead we are discussing.

Mr. Rees: Of course that is so, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that I shall always be obedient to your injunctions. The subhead deals with student awards as chan-

nelled to and through local education authorities. The point I wish to raise is concerned with a proposal to close the Nonington College of Physical Education, which is, as I shall demonstrate, if you will be so kind as to let me develop my theme, a gem in the educational crown of the Kent Education Authority, which is concerned, rightly, with the awards that it has to make, properly, to students, some of whom go to this college. I hope that you will allow me to develop my theme, and you will see, with your usual indulgence, that I am keeping myself fairly closely within the rules you have stated for the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall be surprised if I do. I may say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that I should have been much more strict with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)—and the hon. and learned Gentleman knows it—and I hope that, in the interests of those to follow, he will make passing reference and at least hang his coat every now and then on the subhead we are discussing.

Mr. Rees: Of course I shall hope not to deviate one whit more than my hon. Friend did, Mr. Speaker. I have, in fact, under your gentle guidance, disclosed the particular point I wish to make, although it is encompassed in the general principle, I respectfully submit, exemplified by the Supplementary Estimate. It is the proposal—and at the moment it is no more than that—to close the college. I wish, through you, to assure tl1, Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State that I can recall few issues on which I have had such a large postbag expressing such unanimity of view both from inside and outside the teaching profession.
In our House magazine—I do not know how appropriate it is to refer to it in our debates—the Secretary of State is described, in charming and eulogistic terms, as a lady who opposes without rancour. I suggest that her problem on this occasion is to demonstrate that she can close without rancour. I wish to approach this problem from a variety of avenues, all within the rules of order, I hope, that you, Mr. Speaker, have laid down.
First, I should like to look at it from the point of view of the local education


authority because these grants have to be channelled to and through the local education authority. I would therefore draw the Minister's attention to the position of the Kent Education Authority and its relationship with, or its availability of, teacher training colleges.
I am very much conscious of the general criteria for restructuring the teacher training system which the right hon. Lady put in the Library when she made the initial announcement. I draw the attention of the House to paragraph 2(b), which says that
initial and in-service teacher education should be closely related and the institutions providing the former should have a major role in relation to schools and teachers in their area. The corollary follows that there must be as good a geographical spread of teacher training institutions as is compatible with overall numbers and other requirements;".
I make no apology for quoting these general criteria to the House. It will be important to judge this Supplementary Estimate, and the proposal that I wish to draw to the attention of the House, by reference to these criteria. Paragraph 3 is headed, "Regional and Demonimational Considerations". It states:
The need for the best geographical distribution in support of in-service education and training referred to above would in any case require attention to be paid to the regional distribution of institutions in relation to their prospective school populations. In a period of contraction regions and the local authorities within them will also be vigilant to see that their institutions are not required to make disproportionate sacrifices.
As I shall submit to the House, that is exactly what the Kent Education Authority is being asked to do. In the first instance, as hon. Gentlemen will recall, the teacher training college at Sittingbourne has already been closed against the wishes of the Kent Education Authority. With regard to the teacher training college at Stockwell, which was then part of the Kent Education Authority, the authority has been asked to relinquish its interest so that it will form part of the Bromley Institute of Higher Education. There is the Christchurch College of Canterbury, which is a Church of England institution—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have deliberately allowed the hon. and learned Gentleman to make his special points. I must draw his attention to the fact that

he is discussing "Section E: Teacher Training", whereas we are at the moment discussing "Student Awards".

Mr. Rees: With the profoundest respect, I would draw the attention of the Chair to the fact that the allocation of expenditure on student awards, and the way they are spent, must naturally be the concern of an education authority.

Mr. Speaker: That may well be, but the question of teacher training colleges is not what this debate is about.

Mr. Rees: With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, I have indicated—I hope with suitable deference to the Chair—that I would go no further beyond the bounds that you allowed to my hon. Friend. Perhaps you would permit me to confine myself as closely—

Mr. Speaker: I made a mistake with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton. I allowed him to go much too far. If I allow the hon. and learned Gentleman to do so, I must allow everyone else to do so. I must say that this is not an occasion on which we are debating the closure of colleges. It is a debate about student awards. We must have some order in our rules. I have given a lot of rope to the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Rees: My speech will then become unintelligible by reference to what has gone before. I have always understood that within the rules of debate one should try to follow the previous speeches. I would draw your attention to the fact that this heading states:
Grants to local education authorities of 90 per cent. of net expenditure on mandatory awards.
The education authority in Kent is deeply concerned about the way that it has to expend its mandatory awards to students. It is naturally concerned that there should be the maximum scope for teacher training and, therefore, with the channelling of its awards confined to the county of Kent. The authority does that by reference to these general criteria.
I do not wish to take up a Jesuitical, hair-splitting position on this, but this is a matter of deep concern in my constituency. I know that you will appreciate that, Mr. Speaker, and be sympathetic. I am trying to follow the rules as they were


laid down for my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton, and I hope that you will permit me to continue.

Dr. Keith Hampson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I may be able to help my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). Since this is 90 per cent. which is rebated back to the local authorities, it means that there is an important cash flow problem for local authorities to find the other 10 per cent. If my hon. and learned Friend related the problems of the local authorities to that aspect, he might find it an effective point to make.

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to be unfair to the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees), but I have to be fair to the rules of the House. I have confessed to the House that I was not sufficiently strict with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and that I should have pulled him up much earlier. If we do not keep to the rules of order, these debates will become meaningless.

Mr. Rees: In the interests of symmetry, perhaps you will allow me the same latitude as that which you allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton.

Mr. Speaker: I am saying that I cannot do that. I made it clear that I was wrong with the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton. But, having seen that I was wrong, I do not propose to go on being wrong.

Mr. Rees: With profound respect, Mr. Speaker, this cash flow problem is a very important one. The education authority in my area is deeply concerned about its educational budget and the Supplementary Estimates that we are voting, and it is concerned in the context of this proposal for the reasons that I was uncovering in that there is left responsible to it only this one last college of Nonington. If it is closed, the authority will be making mandatory awards to students from Kent who cannot go to any teacher training college in their area. I hope on that basis that I have demonstrated to you—

Mr. Speaker: indicated assent.

Mr. Rees: I am grateful for your nod of assent, Mr. Speaker If I may be

allowed to proceed, I assure you that I shall behave with appropriate discretion.
As I was saying, the last teacher training college in the county of Kent for which the Kent Education Authority is responsible is that of Nonington. I am not here to criticise Christchurch College, which is an admirable Anglican foundation. Indeed, there is interchange between Nonington and Christchurch College. But it cannot be right that one of the major education authorities in the country will no longer have a teacher training college responsible to it. The Minister must appreciate the spin-off advantages for any education authority in having a major teacher training college within its purview. The last one left in Kent is that of Nonington.
I emphasise the effect on East Kent as an area. In parts of it, there is an unemployment rate of 11 per cent. and a limited range of job opportunities. Already the area is threatened by the closure of the Royal Marine depot. The college has a teaching staff of 54, with supporting secretarial and domestic staff. Now their careers will be blighted or they will have to move to another part—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal knows as well as I do that grants for mandatory students who cannot go to college in Kent are beyond the scope of what we are discussing. I must now indicate that I intend to insist that the hon. and learned Gentleman keeps within the ruling which I made.

Mr. Rees: I am sorry if it appears that I am lacking in suitable deferrence to the Chair if I take up this point. But, obviously, the spending of student grants, whether they are spent in Kent or in Cumberland, is a matter of deep concern to the local education authority. Awards made to students who take up places in Nonington are of crucial importance to East Kent. We are talking about student awards, and this matter is closely within the item that we are discussing. Awards made to students at the Nonington College of Education are of great significance to the economic and social life of that part of East Kent. I need instance only landladies, local institutions and suchlike matters. It is not only the educational impact but also the economic and


social impact which I feel that I should stress.
I come now to the college itself as an educational institution on which a great deal of money has been spent. I raise this point because the college is obviously financed to a degree by the awards made to the students. The college may he small in numbers but it is high in quality. I note that paragraphs 11 and 12 of the general criteria suggest that the minimum size at which an institution is likely to be educationally and economically viable depends on a number of factors.
In deference to what you have said, Mr. Speaker, I shall not touch on the general and important subject, which I hope will be debated on another occasion, of whether it is more appropriate to have a monotechnic college—I hate the jargon—or a polytechnic. We shall have to develop that argument on another occasion. I am keeping closely to the impact on Kent.
The college, which has a magnificent site, has been established for 30 years. It is lavishly equipped, and in the last five years about £1 million has been spent on it. I should like to indicate some of the equipment available to students for their awards. I am doing this because the financial equation is crucial to our debate. Students at the college can use an indoor swimming pool, a performing arts centre incorporating a theatre with closed circuit television, a drama studio, two specialist dance studios, a music department, a well-equipped library, two modern gymnasia with equipment designed by the college and a separate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that if he persists I shall ask him to resume his seat. I have made perfectly clear that we are discussing student awards and I must ask him to keep to that subject or I shall ask him to resume his seat.

Mr. Rees: With deepest deference to you, Mr. Speaker, what is available to students for their awards and the value that they receive for money must surely be a matter of concern to the House and education authorities. I was discussing purely the financial aspects. I have deliberately eschewed whether it is preferable to have monotechnic or polytechnic colleges. I am keeping scrupulously to the financial aspect. I hope that you will

not consider me wanting in deference to your earlier ruling. I hope that I am observing that ruling scrupulously.
On the financial aspect, I am entitled to ask what alternative use would there be for these buildings if they were closed?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is what the hon. and learned Gentleman is not able to do. The future of colleges does not come under this heading. I shall not permit the debate to go wider than Section F, on student awards.

Mr. Rees: I hope that you will allow me to come to the subject of the students themselves. One question that is connected with the awards is, who is able to take them up? What type of student is taking up the awards, and what educational qualifications and attainments will such a student have? Surely that must be a matter within the scope of this debate.
I remind the House that applications nationally—and this is well within the scope of the item that we are debating—have dropped by more than 33 per cent. in the past year. It is a matter of curiosity that we should have this Supplementary Vote at all. Applications to Nonington dropped by only 18.6 per cent. for girls while male applicants have risen by 12 per cent. On any view the standards of the students applying and being passed out from the college are as high as if not higher than any in the country. A dedicated staff is turning out high quality pupils. That is not a story of mediocrity or failure. It is a success story.
But at the moment we are in a period of financial stringency. The question of numbers may weigh with the Minister. I shall leave him with one practical suggestion. The Chelsea College of Physical Education at Eastbourne is to be amalgamated with Brighton Polytechnic. Why not with Nonington?
We appreciate that the pressure on Ministers is very great. Instead of the generalised debates on education which the Secretary of State has been holding throughout the country she should concern herself with more concrete decisions, with seeing to what purpose these awards are put, and the kind of end product in human terms that they give the country.
I know that the right hon. Lady is well briefed, but there is no substitute for the eye of the Minister herself. Let her dispel the unworthy suspicion that perhaps these decisions are taken with party political considerations in mind. Let her come down to Nonington herself to see whether the claims being advanced are exaggerated. If she comes she will surely appreciate that this proposal is a disastrous one, not only for East Kent and for Kent as a whole, but for the whole educational structure of this country.

10.26 p.m.

Dr. Keith Hampson: My two hon. Friends who have spoken have displayed a great deal of interest and concern about their individual colleges, and I do not wish to get entrapped as they did at times. All I can say is that I wish I could debate the question of Nonington. I know a charming young lady there for whom the college has done great service. I endorse what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) said about the college.
Perhaps the Minister will take this opportunity to allay some of the concern and to demonstrate to the House whether the proposals are genuinely proposals and whether there is any prospect of reconsideration of them. Clearly morale is bad, and the way that the announcement was made, without prior negotiation, and with local education authorities not even written to, merely phoned on the day of the announcement, has caused a great deal of ill will. The suspicion is this has been agreed as a fait accompli. We would like the Minister to give us some assurance that this is not the case.
On the question of the grants themselves I want to deal with the point which emerged from the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, which was that the 90 per cent. rebate to local authorities takes time to come through. There is therefore a problem of cash flow for local authorities, and they will probably have to find an increase shortfall as student numbers rise. Clearly they have to pay mandatory grants for an increasing range of courses. I am in favour of that, and I supported the move in 1975 to extend the range of courses eligible for mandatory grant. It is, however, a problem

for local authorities which have to find the money and bridge the 10 per cent. gap by loans, building up debt interest which falls on the ratepayers.
This was one of the key points raised by my hon. and learned Friend. It is ratepayers' money that is being spent. It is not simply money coming from the State to support students on higher education courses. There is increasing resentment in local authority where all of that money is going outside the authority and is not in any way being spent within the authority's boundaries.
My hon. and learned Friend was making the point that this large authority —Kent—will have no higher educational institution through which to gain some return from its ratepayers' money. This is a matter of great concern and we must look closely at the general effectiveness of the operation of the grant mechanism.
We should go beyond that. The House will no longer just automatically accept Supplementary Estimates, or the old pattern of operation. We must now consider whether the present grant system is the most effective. We are having the triennial review, and it seems to have emerged that there will be no rethinking and no major changes proposed by the Government. Yet when the effect on students of other developments such as social security changes, are considerable, it is imperative that we rethink the entire grant system.
We are concerned about the breakdown of this large amount—£5.4 million —which is just there as a lump sum. The Minister must tell us something about its distribution and make-up, the mix of students in benefit. Under this heading there are the people on degree courses and their equivalents, the HND, the DipHE, the teacher training courses. There is a world of difference between the courses in the range.
Some of us are very keen to have far more people going on the HND-type course, to have more people going through not the traditional degree pattern but courses which will open them up for more to the world of work and experience. That is why the Opposition formally supported the Government when they made the DipHE and HND eligible for mandatory awards instead of local discretionary awards.
We are increasingly finding in the present economic troubles that the discretionary area is being cut back. That is the very area that we should be trying to promote, because those in it are usually doing craft-level courses and other courses that are central to the great debate that the Prime Minister has launched. Very often they are mature students.
It would be useful to know what proportion of students who have benefited from the extra £5·4 million fall within those categories of HND and DipHE, and particularly how many are mature students. These are the areas where hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to see an increase, but one suspects that the trend is the other way, that there are now increasing disincentives to mature students to re-enter the system. The new fee levels that the Government propose from next year will build into the system even more disincentives to the person who is self-financing and to the small and medium-sized firm sponsoring such people, the very people who the system really needs, the in-service system that we all want to promote.
I believe, for example, that it is more sensible to achieve a greater awareness of industry in the schools not simply by making teachers more aware of industry but by attracting into the schools people from industry, training them as mature students. That is the opposite of what is happening. The trend is to move away from hiring the older, more experienced people who want to return to teaching and to mop up the initial teacher training places caused by the falling birth rate and the Government's decision to change the teacher-pupil ratio decided in the White Paper of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Such matters have flooded the market with people who have done their initial teacher training. Consequently, people in the very categories that we are trying to bring back into the system are hit.
The grant system that we are discussing refers to mandatory categories. One of the Government's policies is to mop up some of the surplus places in the colleges by encouraging them to retrain teachers into shortage and speciality areas. There is an acute problem if they are young people who have gone straight out of the colleges and found themselves without jobs because they were in a sub-

ject area that was already over-supplied. If they want to stay in teaching and so wish to retrain in, say, mathematics, foreign languages or design, who finances them? As far as I know, there is nothing in these Estimates to cover that matter. It has taken so long for such courses to be organised. They are not entitled to another mandatory award. Therefore, they fall on the mercies of the local education authorities and the discretionary system, which is being massively cut back in the number and level of the awards.
All the time in education one finds one hand of the Government not operating in line with the other. What is correct as a policy is frustrated by inaction or inadequate action in other areas.
We are seeing an escalation in the cost of student support. This is an enormous Supplementary Estimate. It is the largest that affects the education service. It will clearly go on escalating as demand picks up after the last few years when it has been stagnant.
I believe that the largest single element in marginal costs in the higher education system now is student maintenance. Therefore, the Minister must give some assurance about the possible impact of the student support system on local authorities and their colleges and the spinoff that they will or will not get—also an assurance that some of the serious effects of the cutback proposals are still open to reconsideration. We want an indication of the breakdown within this Supplementary Estimate, to where he hopes the policy will lead, what balance in students numbers, type and nature he wants to see and whether he is considering any changes in the system.
The cost is considerable and one wonders whether it can be met or whether there are more effective ways of giving help to those groups of students whom we want to encourage in the system—the mature students on in-service, short specialist and topping up courses, and those taking sub-degree craft courses who are not technically within the terms of this Supplementary Estimate, but who have to be viewed in the overall context of student support.

10.37 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): This has been a varied debate


between the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) and the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) on the Opposition Back Benches, who tried to bend the rules of the debte to raise matters affecting their constituencies, and the hon. Member for Ripon (Dr. Hampson), on the Opposition Front Bench, who has construed the arguments much more strictly.
You, Mr. Speaker, are notorious—or famous, I should say—for your generosity as a Back Bencher, a Minister and Speaker. But that leads me into difficulties as a Minister replying to the debate because I have to steer between the Scylla of obeying your injunction to be in order and the Charybdis of replying to hon. Gentlemen whom on some occasions you had to upbraid for being out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I am Scylla, the hon. Gentleman had better stick to Scylla. If I am Charybdis, he had better stick to Charybdis.

Mr. Oakes: I shall try to stick to Scylla, Mr. Speaker. At the outset I should like to talk on Scylla lines about the debate. Mandatory awards are made by local education authorities in respect of a large number of different courses leading to degrees and certain comparable qualifications, to a Higher National Diploma, to the Diploma of Higher Education and to an initial teacher training qualification. There is a wide variety of mandatory awards.
Estimates of expenditure, 90 per cent. of which is borne by my Department, are based on returns made by the authorities. The original Estimates for the financial year 1976–77 amounting to £200,273,000 were based upon an estimate of 325,000 award-holding students overall for the academic year 1976–77, of whom over 100,000 were estimated as the numbers expected to be taking courses of initial teacher training.
While later returns showed a drop in the estimated number of teacher training students for that year—to 94,000—they showed a small increase in the overall number of students to 328,000. The estimated expenditure on mandatory awards was thus increased in the spring, although the main part of the increase—about £39

million, giving a total estimate of £239,187,000—arose from the decision to increase the levels of student grant for the academic year 1976–77 by about 18 per cent. That was the bulk of the increase. I hope that in this strictly financial debate I have answered the question that has arisen about the increase in the amount.
Treading gingerly, I want to deal now with some of the other points that have arisen in the debate, in particular with the number of awards being given for teacher training at present and more particularly with the number of awards that will be given in the future.
One of the elements that has been missed, except by the hon. Member for Ripon is the effect of the birth rate. That is crucial to our discussion. After the post-war bulge the number of births fell each year until 1956. Then they rose steadily until 1964 when they began to fall again. In order to plan for a number of services, including school buildings and teacher training, the Government of the day—and it was not my Government—had to make some forecasts of future births. These forecasts, based on past data about the age at which women had borne children and the size of families, indicated that the birth rate would begin to rise again soon. The historical date, however did not and could not take into account the new factor of widespread use of contraception and especially the contraceptive pill.
With hindsight, we know better. The number of births has fallen every year for the past 12 years and, on the evidence available, it is still falling. That is a crucial matter that any Minister at the Department of Education and Science must take into account when he considers mandatory awards for teacher training places. If he does not take that into account he will train teachers for certain unemployment. That is something that neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State are prepared to do. We have to try to find a balance looking at the existing figure of births and projected births.
As a result of that, the decision was made to reduce the teacher training figure to about 45,000—a rather high figure—of which 35,000 would be for initial training places and 10,000 for in-service training at places provided within the
existing teacher training colleges. The figures were based on the birth rate continuing at its present level—although it is declining. In case statisticians were wrong, as they were in the past, and there was a sudden birth rate explosion in the late 1970s, we tried to deal with proposed closures of training colleges in such a way that we could increase the number of mandatory awards that would be available for people going into teacher training in the 1980s to a figure of up to 60,000.
We have tried to deal with the situation rationally so that we do not create further teacher unemployment, but, on the other hand, if the statisticians are wrong, as they have been in the past, we can increase the number with a fair amount of ease within existing colleges.
I say to the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton that I appreciate his point of view in putting forward the credentials, as it were, of Ealing College. It is a good college. There are many good colleges where teacher training is proposed to be closed, not because there is anything wrong with the college but because within the number of mandatory awards to students that have to be given we must bear in mind the birth rate, and we must bear in mind the birth rate in the future. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with a college that has to be closed or where there is a propsal for closure. It is because of the birth rate itself.
I take issue with the hon. Gentleman —I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to allow me to reply to this point—when he says that this was done on some party political basis. I was very much responsible for looking at every college in the United Kingdom. There was no special list in the Department, as some newspapers said. We looked at every college—the great, the good, the famous and otherwise. In no way did it occur to us to look at it on a party political basis, as to where the college was physically situated. The college to which the hon. Gentleman refers, by an accident of boundary redistribution, is in the constituency of Ealing, Acton. It could easily have been in Ealing, North or another constituency which is a Labour-held constituency.

Sir George Young: I am afraid that the Minister has been misinformed. Thomas Huxley College is in the existing

constituency of Ealing, Acton and the old constituency of Acton. Under no conceivable boundary redistribution could it have been in Ealing, North or Ealing, South.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps 1 may intervene. It would be unfair to the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal, who is expecting a reply to his case, if the Minister is allowed to answer the arguments that I have already tried to rule out.

Mr. Oakes: I appreciate that I am straying, Mr. Speaker. I shall stray no longer in that direction, except to say this: clearly, it would be madness for a Minister to try to decide this matter on the basis of some party political programme. Students in colleges come from all over the country. Lecturers in colleges often live in constituencies far from those in which their colleges are situated. It so happens that, given the trend of what we are trying to do, to place the mandatory awards very much where other courses take place, in polytechnics and so on, there may well be bias in favour of Labour-held constituencies, because inner city areas tend to be Labour-held, and many of the colleges and monotechnic colleges are situated in rural or seaside areas that are normally held by Opposition Members. But in no way at all was it ever considered where a particular college was or on which side of the House sat the Member of Parliament representing the area. That was never a criterion that we considered.
I should like, within the rules of order, to discuss further the debate so far. It has been suggested that my right hon. Friend did not consult sufficiently when deciding on the number of mandatory awards in the future and secure the agreement of the Advisory Committee on the Supply and Training of Teachers. We have put this matter to the Advisory Committee and to the CLEA. They said "You put your proposals to us and we shall consider them."
When one thinks of the proposals in 1972 and 1973 and the three years that it took to decide upon places, one appreciates that in no way could we do that again, because if we did, we should be projecting this into the middle of the 1980s, even into the late 1980s, and still continuing to produce teachers for whom
no jobs would be available because of the decline in the birth rate. That is crucial to the decision on the number of mandatory awards made for teacher training in the future.
I have a duty to the House to try to indicate what we are trying to do in the future on mandatory awards, bearing in mind the certain knowledge about the birth rate to the mid–1980s and the projected rates for the future.
The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton referred to his own particular college. I shall not fall into the trap and incur your wrath, Mr. Speaker, by following him on that. On 30th March, a delegation about this college is coming to see me to discuss its merits. That is the right and proper way to do it—it should not be done by way of this debate.
The hon. Member for Dover and Deal described the excellent college that houses the mandatory awards given for teacher training and challenged me to visit it. I do not think that it would be productive, either for me or my right hon. Friend to visit any colleges at the moment, particularly those where the closure has been proposed.

Mr. Peter Rees: No, it would not be safe.

Mr. Oakes: It is not a question of not being safe. I do not think it would be wise. There are 28 such colleges, and if I visited some and not others, I would be in difficulties. Hon. Members should remember that these are proposed closures—not actual closures. As a Government we do not have the power to make closures. We can only make proposals to the local authorities concerned. The local authorities have the right, and that right is being exercised time after time when they come to see us and tell us where we have gone wrong.
Given the fall in the birth rate, and given the fact that we do not want to create more and more teachers for certain unemployment, I urge hon. Members to have a sense of responsibility. I can forgive them for fighting for the colleges in their constituencies, and even for trying to bend the rules of debate to get their arguments in. But I plead with them not to give blanket opposition to closing colleges. If they do, they will be advocating the training of

teachers for jobs that will not be there. When we are considering mandatory awards for teacher training places, the birth rate is a crucial factor that must be considered.

Mr. Peter Rees: Could the Minister indicate a deadline for a date for the decision?

Mr. Oakes: We want it fairly quickly. There is no deadline date, but we want the representations to be made quickly because it is very damaging for colleges to be left in limbo in this way. I would hope that we could make the final pronouncements by Whitsun, and if hon. Members wish to make representations to discuss the closure of a particular college with me or my right hon. Friend they may do so.
I come back to the point about the number of places available in teacher training colleges. The hon. Member for Ripon raised a point with me about—I am having a little difficulty in reading my note about it.

Dr. Hampson: Perhaps the Minister can think about that while I put a point to him. Can he comment on his policy about mandatory awards for teachers who want to be retrained and who have already had a three-year mandatory award?
In connection with that, there is the whole key point about the nature of the planning for forecast numbers, and hence grants. What the hon. Gentleman has been saying is that the Government are planning on the basis of 18-pluses coming into the system. I said that if we were to build in other forms of incentives to get more mature people back, that would affect the number of grants and the cost.

Mr. Oakes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He has directed my mind to the point that he made and the scribbled note that I could not read. One of the greatest problems is illiteracy, from which I suffer when I try to read my notes.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that a mandatory award is made to a three-year trained student who comes back to one of the specialist one-year courses to which he referred, be it mathematics, science or craft education. A mandatory award will be made to a three-year student who wishes to come back to such a course.

Mr. Hampson: As I recall the circular, the 10 pilot schemes were to investigate the possibility of courses in craft design. It has taken two years of reorganisation, and we still do not have another set up in mathematics. That circular said that if these people had already enjoyed a mandatory grant they would have to fall back on the discretionary awards given by local authorities. I remember that clearly, because it seemed a major failing of the system. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Government have reconsidered that?

Mr. Oakes: My advice is that a man- datory award would be made to a three- year student. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about four-year students and beyond. I do not know whether that answer would apply to the B Ed or four-year students, but that would be the position for three-year students. That is as I understand the position, but if I am wrong I shall write to the hon. Gentleman.
I have spoken for far longer than I intended. I have, with difficulty, tried to reply to the debate. I say to hon. Members that although proposals may have been made to close colleges in their constituencies, no final decisions have been made. The whole issue is still open. I have received many representations from delegations, and I am considering care- fully and putting to the Secretary of State the views that have been given to me. If Conservative Members, instead of bending the rules of order, will make arrangements to see my right hon. Friend or myself, similar consideration will be given to their representations.

Orders of the Day — FOOD SUBSIDIES

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Michael Neubert: The Minister will not need reminding that I raised this subject of food subsidies on the Consolidated Fund Bill just 12 months ago. That was at 3 o'clock in the morning. The debate tonight is at a more civilised time. Nevertheless, the Minister may feel that we should not keep meeting like this, because one advantage of anniversaries is that they provide a yardstick—or perhaps the word is yearstick—by which to measure progress and to test the accuracy of min-
isterial predictions. In addition, it happens to be as close as we can get to the third anniversary of the Labour Government coming to office at the beginning of March 1974. We can therefore also consider the record in that more precise perspective.
In the debate last year, the Minister said, as a general background to our discussion:
On the counter-inflation front, we are on course towards our target of reducing the rate of inflation to single figures by the end of the year.
At the end of December, the annual rate of inflation was 15·1 per cent. and was therefore missing the target of no more than 9 per cent. by 66 per cent. That must have been extremely disappointing for the Government. In January, the rate of inflation had increased to 16·6 per cent. and it is rising. The rate has increased in each of the last six months and will undoubtedly go higher. The wholesale prices index today shows a further increase of 1·25 per cent.—giving an annual increase in that index of 19·75 per cent.
Once again, we are considering the subvention for food subsidies against a background of generally rapidly rising prices. It is a matter of relief that they are not rising quite as fast as they have been in recent months, but they are rising none the less and it can be confidently predicted that they will go nearer 20 per cent. before they fall again towards the end of the year.
It must be a matter of regret that in three years, the cumulative effect of price rises, whether in food or generally, has been savage. By December, the cumulative rise in the Index of Retail Prices since the Government were returned to office was about 65·2 per cent. Now, at the third anniversary of the Government's election, it is the better part of 70 per cent. Food prices have been even worse. By mid-December, the rise in food prices was 74·5 per cent. and one can expect it to be nearly 80 per cent. now.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): The hon. Gentleman has begun his speech by seeking to draw the picture very widely indeed. The debate is essentially quite narrow and I should like to answer any points he may have


about the Supplementary Estimates. I hope that he will give me the opportunity to do that.

Mr. Neubert: I have been speaking for only five minutes, having sat and listened to the previous debate for much longer. I hope that I shall be allowed to develop my arguments at the normal pace and with the sufficient care and cogency that this important subject demands. I am referring to the Minister's own remarks in an identical speech last year and I hope that I am meeting his wishes and those of the Chair in making these points.
On the narrower question, the Minister said last year in justification of food subsidies:
Food subsidies have played an essential role in the Government's social policies, but because of our successes on other fronts we can now begin to give them a less important part to play.
He also said:
The present situation is very different from which we faced when taking office two years ago. Prices were then rising sharply and causing considerable concern to the poorer families in the community, who necessarily spend a large proportion of their income on food and other basic essentials."—[Official Report, 19th March 1976; Vol. 907, c. 1768, 1770, 1767–8.]
Having paid tribute to the contribution of wage restraint to the easing of the frightening high rates of inflation, it is necessary to have very sharp eyesight to spot any other successes to which the Government can point in the past year. Considering the effect on poorer families, one wonders whether the Minister is still prepared to argue the same case. After all, last year—presumably the same will be true this year—he argued the case for the phasing out of food subsidies. My concern is that he may not be sufficiently firm or resolute in that purpose. Indeed, the occasion for this debate is an increase in the Vote for those subsidies.
Admittedly, the increase is of the least significance—£1,000—which against a background of £400 million of food subsidies is so minute as to be almost invisible. Neverthless, on past performance, there are grounds for believing that the Government may not keep to their course.
In July 1975, having embarked on phasing out these subsidies, the Govern-

ment, under trade union pressure, found it necessary to add £70 million to the subsidy provision. Similarly, referring to subsidies last year, I dealt with the school meals programme, for which an increase of 5p per meal had been proposed for the following September.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps I may help the hon. Gentleman. This debate relates only to milk, bread, flour and household flour and the reason for the increases set out in Class III, Vote 5. As long as the hon. Member keeps to that subject we shall both be happy.

Mr. Neubert: Having lived through the previous debate, Mr. Speaker, I now understand better the term "disorderly house". I hope that, having referred to arguments on this subject in last year's debate on the same specific issue of an increase in food subsidies, and having kept to the same general argument, I shall not incur your disfavour, Mr. Speaker.
I shall certainly try to relate my remarks closely to food subsidies. If I stray from the six basic foods, it will be by way of illustration, rather than in an attempt to diverge into a completely new argument. I shall of course refer to the fact that the Government have phased out two of their subsidies, on butter and tea, and have substantially reduced others. That is why I want to be sure that they will continue in this progress—and I do regard it as progress.
Although I may already have suggested a rather more simple attitude—that this was not the best time to phase out food subsidies and therefore increase prices—I intend to make a different argument. That is that these subsidies should have been phased out earlier, and certainly much earlier than is at present proposed. It is not merely the £1,000 additional provision but all the £110 million remaining in the subsidy programme which is called into question by these changes.
The effect at this time on the poorer family of phasing out food subsidies is likely to be more serious than the Minister suggested 12 months ago. If he has seen the report in The Guardian of 1st March to the effect that the cost of a shopping basket has risen by 10 per cent. in the past three months, he must realise that in that shopping basket for basic foods, which is designed to monitor the


spending of a low-income couple with two children on a range of basic foods, are listed the very items with which we are concerned, namely, bread, milk, cheese and flour.
My calculation is that on present subsidy rates under the proposals before us tonight in these Supplementary Estimates there will be, if the subsidies are to be phased out overnight, which is not the proposal, an increase of 21p for that typical low-income family.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. I hope that the hon. Gentleman understands how reluctant I am to interrupt him, but we are discussing only the reason for the increases set out in Class III, Vote 5—milk, bread, flour and household flour. Decreases are not relevant, because the Government are not seeking permission for them. The question is not food subsidies in general but the reason for the increases in the price of the items I have mentioned.

Mr. Neubert: It would be a matter of considerable regret to me if I were to forfeit your good will, Mr. Speaker. However, I put it to you that it makes it very difficult if one is allowed to discuss only the precise form of the proposals for which we are asked to vote supplementary provision. I think you would accept it as a reasonable statement that the increase of £1,000 is not just symbolic. It is the net effect of changes in provision for subsidies on these six items. Some will have risen and some will have decreased. In these terms I hope that I can discuss the whole of the Government's food policy. I submit that one must do that if this matter is to be taken in the context of the Government's subsidy policy in general.

Mr. Speaker: This is a point on which I think I can enlighten the hon. Gentle. man. The opportunity for that debate arises on the main Estimates, not on the ones we are discussing now. The House gets its opportunity to discuss those food subsidies, but not tonight—not in general, at any rate.

Mr. Neubert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker I shall endeavour, having received that guidance, to observe it throughout the rest of my speech. I shall, of course, have to give more precise attention to the changes which are proposed under this head.
An increase is proposed in respect of milk. At present the subsidy on milk is 1 p a pint. On bread flour there is an increase of £14 million, leaving the subsidy at 1p a large loaf. On household flour there is an increase of £2 million. Again, there has been a lower reduction in subsidy. The current subsidy to the individual is about 1p on a pound of household flour.
These increases are offset by decreases which are set out. The subsidies on butter and tea were abolished at the end of last year. The subsidy on cheese has been reduced by 4p a pound from 7p to 3p.
I would dispute why these changes have not been greater than they are and why, instead of an increase of £1,000, we are not being asked to take account of a much more substantial saving. These amounts, in terms of current demands on the household budget, are relatively minor by comparison with the much larger forces at work in the economy.
I ask the Minister, in commenting on the debate I have initiated on the rather narrow basis of these Supplementary Estimates, to indicate to the House whether his policy for subsidies as previous announced is confirmed or denied by this provision, May we know whether the Government remain on course to phase out subsidies entirely within a limited time, and will the Minister put a terminal date to the subsidy programme? In particular, does he intend to follow the precept of not introducing in the future such subsidies as are proposed here?
If it is not out of order, I wish to make the further point that, although at a time of rising food prices the most commonly expected attitude might be a wish to retain some subsidies, it is my understanding that the Government intend to phase them out, and I wish them to do so. The Preamble to the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill begins:
We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom in Parliament assembled, towards making good the supply which we have cheerfully granted to Your Majesty".
Some of us have granted these sums of money more cheerfully than have others, because they run into millions of pounds. Although I must endeavour to keep closely to the specific £1,000, it will be


within the knowledge of the House that more than £1,100 million has been spent on subsidies in 1975–76 alone. Although this specific small item may not have any impact on the world at large, that larger sum certainly has. It has increased the borrowing requirement. Second, it has adversely affected, though to a lesser extent, the balance of trade. Both of those effects have resulted in the depreciation of the pound and therefore in higher prices, which in turn have led, no doubt, to higher costs in the food subsidy programme before us.
For those reasons, I consider further increases in the food subsidy programme to be not in the public interest. I hope that we can be assured that the Government are firm of purpose, that there will be no change under union pressure, from Mr. Jack Jones or anyone else, and that we can expect to see people paying the proper price for their food and the pound restored to its proper value as a result of bringing our expenditure within our means.
When we return to the subject on another occasion, perhaps with wider terms of reference, we may explore again the matter which today has proved not only embarrassing to the Minister but a cause of disquiet to the Chair, which was something which I did not wish to cause by raising it in the first place. With those comments, I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to develop the argument so far as I could, and look forward to the Minister's response.

11.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Robert Maclennan): If the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Neubert) felt that I was in any way embarrassed by his remarks during the first part of his speech, remarks which, on his own admission, were not directed to the increase of £1,000 in the Supplementary Estimate, I assure him that it was simply that I felt that I should have some difficulty in replying to him in so extensive a fashion as that in which he opened the debate.
The hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to rehearse again the Opposition's familiar criticisms of food subsidies, and he sought to build upon the slim evidence of the additional £1,000 of expenditure

which we seek some indication of infirmity of purpose in moving towards the already clearly announced objectives. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no change of policy involved in the publication of this Supplementary Estimate and that we are proceeding along lines which are broadly those adumbrated in earlier Estimates.
The principal reason for publication of this Supplementary Estimate is to enable the House to be fully aware of how expenditure is proceeding on food subsidies. Had the figure been £1,000 less than that published, there would not have been the opportunity for the hon. Gentleman to rehease tonight his familiar objections to the programme, so I have no doubt that to that extent he welcomes the occasion. Lest the hon. Gentleman has misled, although perhaps not by deliberate intent, anyone into thinking that the expenditure on food subsidies will exceed the original estimate for this financial year, I reassure him that that will not be the case.
As the year has progressed, events have required adjustments in our global estimates. The milk subsidy has been increased as a result of a number of factors, including higher production, lower consumption of liquid milk, weakness of the market for manufacturing milk, and measures to help farmers on account of last summer's drought. Expenditure on the bread and household flour subsidies is also higher in consequence of our decision to slow down the planned rate of phasing out.
The estimate of the cost of the milk subsidy was raised by £19,602,000, the bread subsidy by £14 million and the household flour subsidy by £2 million, a total of £35,602,000. Our latest outtum forecast, however, indicates that extra expenditure will be rather less than this figure.
On the other hand, we have abolished the butter and tea subsidies and accelerated the rundown of the cheese subsidy. Our latest forecasts point to a saving of about £40 million compared with the original estimate for these three subsidies. The net result is that our total expenditure will probably be some £6 million to £7 million less than that indicated by the original estimate. Thus we have expenditure firmly under control, as we always have had.
I hope that these facts will indicate clearly to the hon. Gentleman the force of what I began by saying—that we have not departed from our expressed intention in this matter. We accept that the current rate of inflation is disturbingly high. It is, however, substantially lower than the peak level of 1975, when subsidies proved their real worth, and we must bear in mind—in his discursive introduction the hon. Gentleman did not seem to notice this—the extent to which we have made progress in social security benefits since taking office.
The food subsidies must now give way to more effective forms of protection for the poor, such as social security and price controls. Public expenditure has to be restrained, and food subsidies can make a valuable contribution to savings without aggravating the unemployment situation. In the long term, those on low incomes are best safeguarded by a strong economy and by minimal rates of inflation. That is our aim, and we shall achieve it. Indeed, it must be emphasised that we always saw food subsidies as essentially a bridging operation to the point when it would be possible to bring forward adequate social measures which would help to protect the most exposed in our community, and that we have done.
The hon. Gentleman has served a function in enabling me to reassure him and the Conservative Party that the Supplementary Estimate amounts to no more than an opportunity for me to express to the House in the clearest way how expenditure on food subsidies has gone and is going and to relieve him of any anxiety that our figurings had got wildly out of line with our predictions. As I have said, expenditure on food subsidies is and remains firmly under control.

Orders of the Day — FOREIGN VISITORS

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Greville Janner: I am pleased to have the opportunity of raising the question of additional expenditure for foreign visitors, including the salaries of foreign service personnel, who are seeking to prepare the way for these visits; the extra provision for the police, and, no doubt, the secret service, for the protection of our guests; and the reasons for that addition.
We are a most hospitable and kindly people. I refer not only to the Welsh, who are renowned for their singing hospitality, but also to those who are unfortunate enough to inhabit other parts of the British Isles. We welcome guests and are happy to have them with us. We like London to be the central visiting and purchasing point of the world and we are only too pleased to encourage conferences of all sorts at public and, preferably, at private expense. However, we are entitled to ask what money is being spent for official visitors to our country and we are entitled to consider whom we wish to have and whom we would prefer not to have.
There is a new game which I have only played once, and that was last week at a party. I am told that it is called "Murder" but it might be called "He never would be missed." The basis is that everyone round the table writes down the names of six people who, if they disappeared from the face of the earth, would not at all be missed. If one plays that game it is surprising the names that crop up. Most are the names of people about whom there is nothing we can do because their feet are firmly planted on British soil and they are entitled to be both here and as pestilential as they wish.
There are others, who are likely to be official visitors to this country, for whom we are liable to have to pay not merely for their entertainment but also for their protection and security. I wish to refer to only one. It is a person who has persistently said that he intends to come here. But as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, it is hoped that he will take a hint and not come.
When I raised this matter last week the Prime Minister said there is all the difference in the world between coming to a Commonwealth Prime Minister's Conference and attending the celebration of the Queen's Silver Jubilee. In my opinion there is no difference at all.
I refer to President Amin, who would be the most unwanted guest to this country since Hess, with the possible exception of Mr. Shelepin. In each case these people are representative of the worst kinds of dictatorship. I believe that we should retain the freedom to decide whom we wish to have as our official guests and whom we do not.
The Home Secretary has residual powers to see that certain people are not admitted into this country. He exercised those powers, rightly in my view, a few weeks ago when keeping out that disgraceful Danish pornographer, Thorsen, who would have been in this country not as the official guest of our people, not eating at the Royal table and not banqueting at Downing Street and exchanging songs with anyone who might happen to be there at the time, but as a private citizen, however obnoxious. He was kept out and that was right.
I submit that among the official visitors whom we should keep out of this country, now and in future, is President Amin of Uganda. I wish to say why he should be kept out. First, we have enough murderers who are brought to law in this country without inviting into this country people who are mass murderers, particularly the kind who are genocidal maniacs. He is a man who attacks Britain mercilessly and relentlessly, sometimes with the air of a buffoon and the bells of a clown but always with an unpleasantness unparalleled in the world today.
His latest effort was in Cairo only today when he accused Britain and the United States of being imperialist forces and of backing South Africa and Rhodesia while pretending to help the black majorities there to gain power. That is yet another lie.
In a previous Prime Minister's Conference, we rightly said that we did not want among our visitors those who operate racialist policies in South Africa. I believe that we should be equally denunciatory when we are dealing with other unwanted visitors, whether white or black, whether African or European. A dictator is a dictator. A murderer is a murderer. President Amin is both, and the fact that he comes from Africa makes him neither more nor less of a welcome guest here. Certainly we should not spend a penny of public funds on the salaries of Foreign Service personnel to prepare for his visit, or on police protection, which would have to be considerable, or on Secret Service protection, which would be essential for his visit, in any circumstances.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) puts me in some difficulty. Our general rule is that the Heads of friendly States are referred to politely, as is our own Head of State. I understand and appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's feelings, but perhaps he will try to argue his case more generally and not abuse another Head of State.

Mr. Janner: With respect, Mr. Speaker, you said "Heads of friendly States". This is not a friendly State. We have no diplomatic relations with Uganda. We broke them off not because we had any wish to be unfriendly but because of his behaviour towards us. My case is that this man, who has seen fit to denounce Britain day after monotonous day, who has seen fit to murder—let us not mince words; indeed, they are the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which are good enough for all of us, whatever our faiths—Archbishop Luwum and two of his former Ministers and to carry out a campaign of slaughter of tribes which do not follow his line, should not be here in any circumstances, and the fact that he is a Head of State makes it worse, because he would come with diplomatic immunity, and we would not be able to lay a finger on him.
I have certain specific interests in this man. I first got to know of his lying exploits in connection with the sad death of Mrs. Bloch. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the help which he and his colleagues and diplomats gave not only in trying to prevent the murder in the first place, not only in trying to get an inquiry instead of what he correctly described as "a whitewash operation", not only in attempting to recover the body of Mrs. Bloch for her family, because she was a British citizen, but also for my hon. Friend's great personal kindness to the family.
The strange feature is that this man is apparently not only determined to come here but says that he is entitled to come. He has also apparently sent his precursors in the form of 10 ladies, women or girls who are being trained as military pilots for the Ugandan air force. I do not know whether they are included amongst the official guests for whom the public have to pay. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he can about these


Amazonian ladies from Africa. If they fly their planes with the same precision and accuracy as male Ugandan fliers, I am sure that there is not too much to worry about. But we should not allow them to be trained in this country. After all, they are representatives of a despicable dictator who is terrorising his own country. We do not want him here under any guise, and we do not want to have him represented by these women or any others.
I understand from the Press that efforts are being made to lift the burden of expenditure on the British public which would be imposed by having President Amin here by inducing others to lean on him not to come. I remember one of my hon. Friends suggesting that we should not just invite him but have him here for a long period so as to enable others in Uganda to take over while he was away. This temptation should be resisted, in my view, because, on my information, he has killed off any potential successors. Not only has he slaughtered all those who saw the murders of Mrs. Bloch and Archbishop Luwum. Apparently there are few people left who are in any position to replace him.
In the circumstances I am very pleased that Lord Thomson is making this journey. Perhaps my hon. Friend will be able to set the mind of the House and the country at rest and say a little about this journey, which appears to be shrouded in secrecy. I do not believe that this matter should be secret. Amin does not keep his intentions secret, and the country is entitled to know what we are doing and to have a clear statement from the Government that they are not prepared to have this man here under any circumstances, whether it be for the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference or, still less, to visit Her Majesty and spoil the glittering celebrations.
It is said that the rain falls on both the good and the evil. That does not mean, however, that we have to invite the evil here to celebrate the twenty-fifth year of Her Majesty's reign. That man should not be allowed to come here. I hope that the Minister will reassure the country. If my hon. Friend can do that, I shall put Amin at the top of the list of those who never would be missed.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), may I say that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) will have noticed that I allowed him to continue. On reflection I thought that that was entirely right since we are not in diplomatic relations with Uganda.

11.37 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow: The House should be indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for having raised this matter in the House. As the Vote which we are now discussing makes clear, we are now considering the amount of money which Parliament should allocate to matters which fall within the direct responsibility of the Foreign Office. We are talking about expenditure which will be incurred on those who come to this country as official guests of the Government.
The hon. and learned Member pointed out that there are two occasions later this year, three months from now, when it is possible that the President of Uganda might be coming to this country on the invitation or, at at any rate, with the consent of Her Majesty's Government. Any such visit will involve the Government in certain expenditure. If ever there were a case where it was right for this House to consider whether that expenditure, which our constituents will be incurring, was justified, it is now. This is the only occasion on which we are able to raise a matter of this kind in the House.

Mr. Greville Janner: Is the hon. Member aware that among my constituents are very large numbers who have been driven out of their homes by General Amin?

Mr. Gow: was not aware of that. I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for making that point.
It is right that we in the House should say, not in extravagant or extremist language, that we believe that if the President of the Republic of Uganda were to come to this country as the guest of the Government or with their assent or—and I do not use this word in any derogatory sense with the connivance of the Government, and if expenditure were thereby incurred, that would be deeply repugnant to the great majority of the constituents of myself and of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
It is right that this country, which has been the citadel and champion of freedom, should make it plain that we would regard it as an outrage upon the views of our consituents, and a grave misallocation of public funds, if we were to spend money, as would inevitably be the case, on hospitality, in protecting, in greeting and, I suppose, in putting up the President of the Republic of Uganda.
Many of us believe that the hands of the President of Uganda are stained with blood, blood of which the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in the case of Mrs. Bloch, blood, as we 'believe it, in the case of the late Archbishop of Uganda. Apart from those two instances, there is evidence which is almost incontrovertible that in Uganda in recent months and years there has been a policy of mass extermination of those who are opposed to the régime of the President of Uganda.
In those circumstances, to allocate money from the British taxpayer to welcome the President of Uganda to this country, to offer him hospitality and protection, would be deeply offensive to our people. Therefore, I believe that the House is right to afford this opportunity to ask the Minister to reply on the matter of the anxieties which the hon. and learned Gentleman expressed, anxieties which are felt by the overwhelming majority of the British people.
We have a long tradition of hospitality, particularly to Heads of State of members of the Commonwealth. We understand that there are two events in the calendar of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth which are of great importance. The Queen's Jubilee is an event of immense importance to the whole Commonwealth, and we would want that occasion to be one of genuine rejoicing. But that would not be the case if the President of the Republic of Uganda were to come to this country, for it would be impossible to have that spirit of rejoicing and happiness to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred if among our guests, among those upon whom we were lavishing hospitality, was the butcher of Uganda.
But it is not only the Queen's Jubilee that we are considering. We are also considering the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. If there is one link which binds, or should bind, the

Commonwealth of Nations together, it is a belief that we have civilised standards, that we have tolerance, freedom under the law, freedom from fear, from terror, from arbitrary arrest, from murder. Those are the qualities that we expect from the Commonwealth. They are certainly qualities to which the Minister will want to pay tribute when he replies. It would be a great affront to all those traditions and ideals of the Commonwealth if there were to be invited, if hospitality were to be given to, a Head of State who had violated all those principles which are dear to the idealism of the Commonwealth.
It is with great regret that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I speak in this debate. In asserting that the expenditure of public money on acting as host and protecting President Amin would be a grave affront to the people of this country, we believe that we are not only serving the interests of our constituents but are championing precisely those ideals which are effective in the Commonwealth. We are seeking to assert that in the national and Commonwealth rejoicing in the Jubilee this June, to invite or allow President Amin to come would be deeply repugnant both to the institution of the Commonwealth and to the national rejoicing in the Jubilee.

11.45 p.m.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): I am glad that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) have testified to the values and friendship, as well as the understanding, that can be derived from conferences, both national and international, sponsored, supported and promoted by Britain. Equally, I understand the strength of feeling expressed by both hon. Members about the immediate problems arising from the issues that they have raised.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West mentioned an extremely sad and distressing case with which I have had to deal. It was for me personally the most distressing case with which I have had to deal since I have been at the Foreign Office.
We have no quarrel with the people of Uganda, but the Government's attitude towards President Amin can be in


no doubt. Following the Entebbe raid and the disappearance of Mrs. Dora Bloch, never satisfactorily explained by the Ugandan Government, two members of the British High Commission were expelled from Uganda. Following those events the Government broke off all diplomatic relations, convinced that it was no longer possible to do business with President Amin's Government and regime. It is the first time that we have broken off relations with a Commonwealth country, and it is 30 years since we have broken off relations with any country. Therefore, hon. Members may understand and appreciate the depth of feeling about the nature of the events which led us to take that course.
The shocking reports of recent events in Uganda have greatly disturbed Her Majesty's Government, as I am sure they have disturbed the British people.
The House will know from my right hon. Friend's statement on 2nd March that we were deeply disappointed that our proposal, made in a confidential procedure, for an investigation into human rights in Uganda was defeated in Geneva on 1st March. The hon. Member for Eastbourne said that he was sure that I shared his view that, wherever we found violation of human rights, we should stand up and uphold the values and freedoms that we enjoy. That is what we have been trying to do in this instance. We regard the resolution adopted as insufficiently firm, far reaching and effective and are left with no alternative but to press for an investigation in open debate in Geneva, as my right hon. Friend said in reply to questions last week.
The issues raised by the question of President Amin's attendance at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting are not for Her Majesty's Government alone to decide. They are for the Commonwealth as a whole. We shall be willing to take soundings on this matter, but, in view of the delicacy of the situation, I am sure that hon. Members will understand that I would not wish to go further on this matter at present. In this respect, I cannot speculate in advance of any official announcement about the possible role of Lord Thomson.
The question of immigration control is for my right hon. Friend the Home

Secretary. I can do no more than repeat his statement on 28th February:
In general, admission to the United Kingdom of people who neither have the right of abode, nor exemption from immigration control, is governed by the Immigration Act 1971 and the Immigration Rules made under it."—[Official Report, 28th February 1977, Vol. 927, c. 13.]
I cannot go any further than that, because this is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Greville Janner: I fully appreciate that this is a matter for the Home Secretary, but I am sure that there have been consultations. Will my hon. Friend at least confirm that there is residual power to keep out of this country anyone whom the Home Secretary wishes to keep out?

Mr. Rowlands: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spelled out the law in general terms on 28th February. It is not for me, as a Foreign Office Minister, to go beyond that.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West asked me about the training of Ugandan pilots in the United Kingdom. I am aware of reports that these pilots belong to the Ugandan air force. I am unable to confirm that, but I am seeking urgent clarification of the situation. I assure my hon. and learned Friend and the House that the pilots are here on a private commercial basis and that the Government have not been and are not involved in any way in their training, nor, of course, are Government funds being used. My understanding is that these are courses that are open to anyone from any part of the world.
The fate that has befallen Uganda, a previously happy country with which hon. Members and many people in Britain have long and deep personal and governmental ties and which is much cherished by its friends, is a sad one indeed. We cannot remain indifferent to the reports reaching this county of happenings there. If they are true, words are not strong enough to condemn them. We have taken and are taking every opportunity to make our views known. It is our duty to uphold the principles for which the Commonwealth stands. No British Government can flinch from that.

Orders of the Day — SHIPPING (SAFETY)

11.52 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: In raising the important and serious subject of the recent tragic events surrounding the "Globtik Venus", I wish to draw attention to a matter which was put to me by the General Secretary of the National Union of Seamen, Mr. Slater, of which the British maritime industry will not be proud. The sad story is somewhat different from some of the garbled accounts that the public has received in recent days.
It is important to begin at the beginning. The arch-evil underlying the present position is what is known in the seafaring and maritime circles as the flag of convenience trade. That practice has grown up since before the war. After the war, a number of ship-owning companies found it to their advantage to register their companies and ships in countries other than their country of origin. They thereby assumed a flag for their ships known as a flag of convenience.
Companies adopt this practice for two main reasons: first, to escape paying the going wage rate that has been negotiated by strong trade union organisations in the country concerned, which will often be a country with a long standing and important maritime tradition; and secondly, in order to force the crews of these ships to work under conditions that would not be tolerated in their own countries precisely because strong trade union organisations would see to it that they were not tolerated. The motivation is, therefore, of the worst possible character.
Until very recently, the "Globtik Venus" was sailing under such a flag of convenience. The ship is the subject of a recent internal report written by a branch secretary of the British National Union of Seamen, dated 10th February 1977, from Middlesbrough. When the branch secretary was writing his report after a visit to the "Globtik Venus", the ship was sailing under the flag of the Bahamas. The purpose of the branch secretary's visit was to investigate on behalf of the International Transport Federation, which represents seafaring workers throughout the world and acts through the various trade unions in the affiliated countries. When the ITF needs a job

done in Britain and British ports, it asks the National Union of Seamen to do it. This was such an occasion.
The attention of the ITF and, through the ITF, the NUS had been drawn to the fact for a long period the proper rate of wages had not been paid to the crew of the "Globtik Venus". It was the purpose of this visit to establish the facts and to call upon the people in charge of the ship to pay the proper rate and to agree to pay back wages.
To summarise the report received by the headquarters of the NUS in London, it was a pessimistic report, the reply was negative and there seemed no hope of persuading the people in charge of the vessel to pay the proper rate. As the result of this visit, the ship was taken out of the particular flag of convenience under which it was sailing, and it was transferred and registered as a British ship. When the events in Le Havre took place, we were, therefore, dealing with a British vessel, and part of the long-established British maritime fleet. This made an important change in the general position.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman. Would he explain to me how this matter is related to items 1 and 2 of the subhead with which we are dealing? This is not the usual broad debate of Estimates. It is limited to the increases that are shown. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman to develop his argument at great length, but I should be glad if he would now link it with these subheads.

Mr. Mendelson: I have quite deliberately developed a little on the point of origin, Mr. Speaker, because it has not been established previously for the public. However, the whole burden of my argument has to do with safety, to which I am coming almost immediately, when it will be shown how it directly relates to the items to which you have just drawn my attention.
We are, therefore, dealing with a British ship in Le Havre. What now becomes most important is to realise that the origin of this conflict and dispute is in the fact that the ITF has asked the NUS, the main British trade union in these matters, to do its normal lawful work, and that in carrying out this work lies the


origin of the conflict. It was because of efforts to avoid the obligations of paying proper wages to the crew and establishing proper conditions that the rest followed.
When the ship reached Le Havre, the conflict between the crew and the owners broke out and the strike developed. It was a strike against the background of the demands of the seamen, which had been calculated with the help of the International Transport Federation, as a result of an estimate arrived at by the representatives of the National Union of Seamen and the ITF. This amounted to the fact that Mr. Tikkoo and his company, Globtik Tankers Limited, owed the Filipino crew of the "Globtik Venus" in back wages and severance pay a total sum of 242,000 American dollars. This sum was calculated by taking the amount of time served by each member of the crew, varying from four to 18 months, assessing the amount of under-payment, and adding the totals together.
All the stories that Mr. Tikkoo has spread through the British Press, television and radio, alleging an illegitimate demand made by the Filipino seamen, are completely untrue. They are false allegations against a loyal crew, whose loyalty and efficiency has been attested by their competent officers on a number of occasions. We owe this assessment of what is owed to the Filipino crew of the "Globtik Venus" to the competent trade union officers. Mr. Tikkoo did not live up to his ordinary responsibilities as an employer, in spite of all his protestations to the contrary. He is a bad employer, and because he did not want the British public to know about this, he decided on the desperate course of hiring a gang of armed mercenaries in a particular part of Britain, and sending them across to France in a paramilitary organisation in order to storm the ship. That was done under the pretence of their being a replacement crew, which they were not.
The evidence for that can be seen in the fact that these men were used for one job only—to throw out, attack violently, if necessary, and intimidate the Filipino crew, and throw them off the vessel. These men were not used or retained for any sea-faring purpose, which they were not competent to fulfil anyway. They were taken off again, and are now back in this

country. They were paid £200 for the first 48 hours of the operation, and a further £48 per day after that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I am finding it difficult to relate what the hon. Member is saying to this heading on page 175 of the Supplementary Estimates. The only reference that I can find is to A.1 (1) "Coastguards". Is the hon. Member going to discuss the question of coastguards?

Mr. Mendelson: As you will see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the wording that I used when I first submitted this subject to the Table Office for debate, the issue hinges on safety, and I am now coming to the matter of safety, which concerns the coastguards, and which makes the debate relevant.
The whole matter was made into a dangerous operation, for which Mr. Tikkoo must take full responsibility. It is a matter about which all those who are concerned for the good name of the British maritime industry must be seriously concerned, be they with the coastguards or with any other part of our maritime industry.
It is at this stage that I want to read into the record the competent opinion of Mr. James Slater, the General Secretary of the National Union of Seamen, on the grave and dangerous implications to safety of this operation organised by Mr. Tikkoo. He said:
One cannot overestimate the level of safety standards that have to apply to large tankers"—
be they in coastguard waters or on the high seas.
A prerequisite to any safety standard is the manning of the ship. Without adequately safe manning, one could safely say that the various regulations covering this aspect of British shipping would be breached. After hearing the utterances of Mr. Tikkoo on television, in which he was given the privilege of broadcasting over our national network on the severe hazards which he falsely alleged as applying to the 'Globtik Venus' at the time, he shortly afterwards saw fit to employ an army of mercenaries who forcibly boarded the vessel wielding instruments which were completely in breach of the safety standards"—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must draw the hon. Member's attention to the fact that under the terms of this Vote he must discuss the reasons for the increase in the Vote. He has, if I might so put it,


gone fairly wide in discussing the problem of this ship and the crew, but general considerations on wider issues can be raised only on the July and December Bills, and not on this one. I repeat that the hon. Member should confine himself to the reasons for the increase.

Mr. Mendelson: I am coming to the point when I shall ask for Government action. Safety and Government action hang closely together and the one is the reason that leads on to the other. The quotation concludes:
One has seen, both on television and in photographs in the Press, these armed mercenaries with metal axes, metal chains and other instruments of this kind, of which anyone, either through a blow on the decks, or by dropping them, could have blown the ship sky-high, and could have caused considerable damage to the ship and the port of Le Havre.
This is the way in which Mr. Tikkoo acted and this was the purpose for which he employed armed mercenaries—in contrast to the Filipino crew who, the captain of the ship said, had at all times obeyed and kept the safety regulations. The chief engineer shared that view.
This shameful story leads to only one conclusion—it is a sad day for the proud traditions of British maritime history that such a shameful operation should have been started from these shores against a crew which had been acting in full co-operation with its own trade union.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman said that the crew were acting against the traditions of their trade union, but I understood that neither the crew nor the people who took over the ship from them were members of a trade union. Who was breaking whose proud traditions?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before we become even more involved in this case, I think that I should ask the Minister whether there are other provisions about safety under this Vote. Perhaps he could help the Chair because the debate is going extremely wide.

Mr. Mendelson: May I answer the question of the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) before you call the Minister, Mr. Deputy Speaker?
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman deliberately misunderstood me, but I did not say that the crew acted against trade union traditions. They acted completely in accordance with tradition because the back pay had been assessed by the legitimate trade union involved. It will be a matter for an inquiry to find out what relationship these armed mercenaries had to the seafaring trade.
I call upon the Government, through the Minister who is to reply, to institute a high-level inquiry into this sorry affair and to make an announcement tonight that the Government are prepared to do so. I was present earlier to hear the Attorney-General's welcome announcement that he had asked the Director of Public Prosecutions to give his opinion whether a criminal inquiry is justified. We must leave it to the DPP and the Attorney-General to make a decision on the legal side of it, but whatever the outcome of that inquiry, I am convinced that a Government inquiry is essential and I am reinforced in that view by the TUC's announcement tonight that it is asking for a Government inquiry.
I ask the Government to give us an account of the attitude of the French authorities at Le Havre. It is not clear what their attitude was. Did Her Majesty's Consul do everything possible to prevent this act of violence by British citizens against the crew of a British ship?
I hope that the Government will give satisfactory answers to these questions, and that we shall have a full report, followed by a full debate in the House on this shameful affair.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. John Prescott: You have made clear during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), Mr. Deputy Speaker, the difficulties of dealing in this debate with matters which concern us both. I shall try to follow your interpretation of the Vote. You have said that extra money is being provided for the coastguard and safety services. In relation to the "Globtik Venus," these considerations are very much to the fore, because the Department of Industry is responsible for the enforcement of safety on British vessels and for rescue services.
I am on record as having been critical of the coastguard provision, and I have written to the Minister about the MV "Lovat" inquiry. A number of my constituents lost relatives in that shameful affair, which pointed to inadequate safety provision for our seamen. Although the inquiry ended some time ago, we still await its report and have done so for an inordinate time. I hope that everything possible is being done to bring it forward, so that we may consider its recommendations and possibly even find further resources for improving the coastal services. This is a matter of urgency for the shipping industry and for seafarers, including my constituents.
Safety therefore is at the heart of the "Globtik Venus" affair—although other important considerations are also involved. Our coastguard services are available not just for British seamen but for those of all nationalities who get into difficulties around our shores. The main burden of complaint in the "Globtik Venus" affair is also that in the campaign against flags of convenience ships, unsafe ships and unqualified crews.
OECD records show that flags of convenience ships belong to countries without a maritime tradition who sell their flags to help shipowners with tax evasion, and the purchase of "cheaper" crews. These practices, along with the lack of enforcement of safety standards, have led to twice as many of these ships being lost as is the average for traditional maritime countries. These ships place a burden on the safety and rescue operations around our shores.
The answer is not necessarily an increase in public expenditure. We should strike at the source of the problem—particularly inadequately manned ships, caused by shipowners taking labour where they can get it and thereby increasing the dangers at sea. Often, ships go missing with their complete crews. The countries concerned do not hold inquiries in the traditional sense.
Therefore, the campaign by the trade union movement against flags of convenience relates particularly to safety and to loss of life. In many ways, the trade union movement acts as an enforcement agency for Government safety facilities.
Public expenditure cuts have resulted in a reduction in the numbers of those employed in marine safety enforcement in

Britain, whether they be marine surveyors or people employed in the Coastguard Service. This has led to a reduction in standards, and this in turn has had its effect on the rate of accidents and incidents at sea, as the MV "Lovat" inquiry will illustrate.
Because of the steadily reducing amount of Government safety enforcement, the trade union movement plays an important part in the development and maintenance of safety standards in Britain. This debate is part of a general campaign that has been conducted for a number of years by an international trade union movement in an effort to ensure that standards are brought up to the required level. It could be legitimately argued that even greater amounts of money should be proved in order to improve the standards.
This is an international problem. Because the "Globtik Venus" was a flag of convenience ship, it was very difficult for Britain to become involved. Once they began to sail the ship under the British flag, the matter became the responsibility of the Minister and of the House. It was our responsibility to see that standards on the vessel were enforced.
This British ship—the "Globtik Venus"—is, as far as we know, without a crew, although we hear that a crew has been signed on, though not from the traditional source of labour in Britain which would have enabled us to check on the men's qualifications. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us whether the qualifications of the crew are up to the standard he requires the crews of British ships to observe. It is the personnel in his Department who are involved in enforcing these standards.
I hope that the Minister will be able to give us further information which so far we have been unable to glean from other sources. It is crucial, especially as the vessel is a tanker, that we be assured that the standards are adequate. Hon. Members can visualise that these are dangerous vessels if in the hands of inexperienced people. At one stage of this affair a chief engineer was working 24 hours a day in an attempt to maintain the safety standards. He was very concerned about the damage the ship had suffered under attack from the group of mercenaries. I will not call them "seamen", though that is how the newspapers chose to describe them.
These men were engaged in casual employment in an industry which is sometimes used for fishing and sometimes for other things. They were not qualified seamen as the term is understood according to the Merchant Shipping Acts competent to handle a tanker of this size or any other British ship.
The standards for the British fishing industry are almost non-existent. It was therefore misleading of the Press to describe these men as "seamen". They were hired more for their muscle than for their brain. Anybody who has read statements made by these people has just cause for alarm. There must be concern about safety if they are to be hired—as they were reportedly—to go on board ships as British crews.
I have read that some of these men had almost no experience, that they were recruited from the pubs around Humberside. They went on board the tanker with hammers, axes and God knows what else. They were told to remove forcibly the crew who had been hired legitimately.
The Government have recently passed new regulations raising the fines for the offence of smoking on board a tanker. Smoking in certain parts of a tanker can be a serious offence, and the Government have increased the penalties because of their concern for safety. But in the case of the "Globtik Venus" men went charging on board without any regard for safety, and I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us something about the effect on water pipes, machinery, hatches and doors, which, according to reports, were all smashed with axes and hammers—tremendous violence being used without concern for the possible danger to the ship or to the members of the crew at that time, the Filipinos.
One is horrified to think of steel axes being wielded on board a tanker. It needs little imagination to envisage what could happen. Even the water-feeding apparatus on the ship was damaged to such an extent that the boilers were not operating properly, and the maintenance of pressure on board a vessel is an important factor in preserving safety.
I understand the difficulty of keeping within the confines of the Vote, and I readily accept the rule, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some

information about what happened and about the man involved in hiring the crew. Under our Merchant Shipping Acts, there are certain obligations placed on people who hire seamen to work British ships. In the "Globtik Venus" case, it was Mr. Ravi Tikoo who hired men for the purpose of violently attacking members of the legitimate crew on board a British ship.
I should have thought that Mr. Tikoo committed an act of conspiracy, and I hope that the Minister will comment on that. I assume that Mr. Tikoo makes his policy statements in the name of his company. I hope that others responsible for the company will express a view. I know that several Opposition Members are associated with the company. Perhaps they will make clear their views about the actions of the executive direcfor the company will express a view. I Tikoo. Again, I return to the vital matter of safety. The actions of a man who hired thugs to overthrow the legitimate crew of a British ship—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been at some pains to keep as closely as possible to the Vote. The Chair understands the difficulty, but it is a point of major importance and the Chair must maintain the course of debate as it should be maintained. I wonder whether the Minister can help by pointing out what safety aspects of shiping are covered by the Supplementary Estimate in addition to the coastguard service.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I was under the impression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Estimate covered aspects of safety other than the one to which you have directly referred and in fact covered the very aspects to which my hon. Friend was alluding. Of course, I am in your hands regarding the rather narrow interpretation which you have put on the matter, but, with respect, I submit that it is wider than that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is for the Minister to say, because they are his Estimates.

Mr. Prescott: I am extremely grateful for that intervention and exchange between yourself and the Minister, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It relieves one of the


difficult obligation to keep within very narrow terms of reference, and I assure you that I shall not use it as a means of exploiting the situation further.
The main burden of our argument is that we wish to preserve at all costs the safety standards which have been hard won in the British merchant service. They can be maintained by a combination of regulations and laws and the enforcement agencies of the Department, of which the coastguard is only one part. The most important factor in the maintenance of safety at sea is the desire and hope that all those employed in the industry will exercise common sense, bearing in mind at all times the interests of the crew of the vessel—in this case a British ship.
The Merchant Shipping Acts in the main put that obligation on the captain of a vessel. But in this case the captain was confined to his cabin, and he has since left the ship, expressing his view that it was a terrifying situation. We put on the captain of a ship direct responsibility for the safety of his vessel and its crew—indeed, we give him tremendous powers over the crew so that he can exercise his functions. But here we see the captain being overruled by the owner of the company. The captain was ordered to his cabin and guards were put on his door after, it has been reported, he had attempted to order the boarding party off.
The Merchant Shipping Acts make it clear that the captain has responsibility for the safety of the vessel, but in this case the owner, for his own consideration, overruled that responsibility and, either directly or indirectly, ordered that the captain be put into his cabin, with guards on the door, while this murderous boarding party rampaged around the ship smashing parts of it up.

Mr. Parkinson: What evidence has the hon. Gentleman that this damage which he claims to have been done was done by the men who boarded the ship and not by the men who were already on board when they arrived from Grimsby to take it over? What evidence has he, as opposed to assertions?

Mr. Prescott: I think that it is generally accepted by the Press and television that the people running about on board armed with axes and hammers were not the Filipino crew. In any case, why

should the Filipinos attack their own accommodation and personal possessions'? It would not be reasonable to assume that they did. Most of this damage—[Interruption]—was done—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is replying to an intervention. Let there be no sedentary interventions from other quarters at the same time.

Mr. Prescott: If the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) wishes to get further information, he can pass along the Bench to his hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who is parliamentary adviser to the company and could probably say exactly what went on. Presumably the hon. Member for Cathcart has had discussions and can give positive information about what we have been saying. If that is so, I am prepared to give way to him. Apparently none is forthcoming, however. My information is generally in line with the understood position, which we have been hearing about from the ship's officers, who are now making statements which may well lead to court proceedings when we have established the case. Surely the hon. Gentleman will support our demand for an inquiry so that we can get the full facts if he makes any contribution to this debate.
We are concerned under this subhead with safety, and it is the trade union movement which is largely responsible for maintaining safety. There have been many Press comments about my own union, the National Union of Seamen. As one of its officials, I spent many years fighting such owners and standards as those involved in the "Globtik Venus" situation. It is not a new situation. It becomes an expensive business for a union, particularly a small one, to attempt to establish a trade union structure in the merchant service, particularly in ships on the other side of the world, where the Department of Trade cannot send inspectors. A considerable burden is imposed on the union in trying to ensure that safety standards, and the qualifications, wages and conditions of the seamen, are maintained. It requires considerable expense and organisation.
My union, the National Union of Seamen, is now attempting to ensure that everyone on a British ship gets the same rates of pay and not separate wages for


Asian and European crews. This House passed the legislation discriminating between black and white in respect of wages on board British ships. Thanks to the Minister, who is present tonight, we have taken considerable steps to correct that particular problem.
But it takes a considerable amount of money to develop a structure and organisation. All over the world we have been involved in trying to counteract the pressures of an international business. It requires international action to enforce safety and to bring about the sort of changes that are needed.
I hope people will understand that as a small organisation we have to rely on our international brotherhood. The ITF gives us the standards. There are 350 unions around the world. We shall continue with these actions.
The "Globtik Venus" is only one small part of a major problem that we shall continue to fight against. I hope the House has learned that this problem will continue until we have positive action first with regard to British ships and then with regard to flags of convenience. I hope that the debate tonight will lead to support for an inquiry into this matter. Perhaps we shall get action against Mr. Tikkoo because although there was a lot of baying by Conservative Members about the Shrewsbury Two, and about Clay Cross, there was not a word against a man who has hired thugs against the crew of a British ship.

12.37 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The House is indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) for raising this important subject this evening.
Before dealing with the question of the "Globtik Venus", perhaps I might comment upon some of the other matters, not directly relevant to it, that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East. He referred to the inquiry concerning the MV "Lovat". I can tell my hon. Friend that we are still awaiting the report of this inquiry. We have stressed the urgency of it and we expect that it will be available sometime about Easter.
My hon. Friend may be particularly interested to learn that we have already taken some action in the light of the evidence revealed during the inquiry, particularly with regard to coal duff cargoes and the replacement of the older cotton fabric life rafts. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree, when all this is revealed, that it was right to have taken that action prior to the publication of the report.
My hon. Friend and I worked together in the days when he was PPS to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment when at the Department of Trade. We have worked together on a number of important matters concerning seafaring problems. Indeed, I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend. When I came to this job I had a knowledge that was somewhat virginal. During the early days when I worked with my hon. Friend my knowledge became enlarged as a result of his practical knowledge as a former seafarer himself.
My hon. Friend will know of my interest in trying to ensure that the safety of seafarers is enlarged constantly and that I am deeply concerned about all the matters to which he referred. He has done a great deal of work for the European Assembly on questions affecting flags of convenience and substandard ships. I have read his written works on these matters with great interest. We have not yet commented specifically on them, but he knows from conversations and correspondence which I have had with him that the points which he has made in a formidable case are being taken very seriously.
It is fair to say that my own Department has raised initiatives at IMCO in respect of substandard ships which have had a very real impact. I am glad that Britain has taken the initiative in that regard. On the wider issue of flags of convenience, I say in general terms that it cannot be for the good of international seafarers that some should take the view that it is legitimate for one reason or another to seek to contract out of the essential legal and other responsibilities. In that regard, I am at one with my hon. Friend.
There is one matter to which my hon. Friend referred that I ought to comment on, because I do not think that he intended to suggest that our standards of


safety under the British flag had diminished. The reverse is true. If he was seeking to imply this, which I doubt, I do not accept that there has been any diminution in the standards of Government enforcement of marine safety. It is always possible to spend more money and to advance even higher standards. I do not dispute that. But the fact remains that figures recently prepared for the 10 years ending December 1975 show that the record of the United Kingdom flag in terms of tonnage lost or ships lost is second to none among traditional maritime countries and is far better than that for any flag of convenience.

Mr. Prescott: I understand my hon. Friend's point, but the one I was making was that the amount of manpower used in enforcement had been reduced over this period. The argument about whether safety is measured in tons lost is one which we had constantly in earlier days.

Mr. Davis: I am aware of my hon. Friend's point. I do not think that there is likely to be or that there has been any reduction in terms of safety enforcement by reason of anything which has happened in recent days or months.
However, that is not the main purpose of what my hon. Friend was referring to when he started to speak about safety. Suffice it to say that this is, as he said, an international problem, and it is in that context only that we can tackle it successfully. We shall continue our efforts to do so.
Both my hon. Friends asked a number of questions about the "Globtik Venus", and it is perhaps right that I should start by referring the House to the Written Question that was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) last Friday and to the Answer which I gave then.
I provided some background to the dispute which arose over the "Globtik Venus", and I described the action, in the context of my own departmental responsibilities for safety, which had been taken on the instructions of the owners to repossess the ship. I made it clear then that representatives of the International Transport Workers Federation, the United Kingdom trade unions concerned and the General Council of British Shipping had all deplored the use of

force by the boarding party, a declaration which was made in my presence at a meeting which I called at the end of last week.
I entirely share that view. I think that it has been quite irresponsible for the owner of the "Globtik Venus" to use the methods of an eighteenth century despot in order to deal with a twentieth century dispute. The fact that he was reported as having asserted that he would be prepared to take similar action again if necessary was in my judgment utterly deplorable.
I hope that he will now have second thoughts about those misguided and wholly irresponsible comments, and I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), in his responsibility as parliamentary adviser or consultant, will help to put him right. The hon. Member must be sensitive to the fact that no party in this House could begin to support or condone the actions which were taken in this thoroughly offensive and shameful way.
I also arranged for a copy of my statement to be sent to His Excellency the British Ambassador in Manila with the request that he pass it to the Government of the Philippines calling attention in particular to what was said about the use of force, because I expect that that Government would be interested in those comments. Some of the statements which were made to the news media last week by Mr. Tikkoo about the danger of a ship loaded with oil cargo were in their context misleading, and the general derogatory references to the seafaring trade unions were hardly calculated to make the situation easier or to bring about an amicable settlement in the case.
My concern is directed to safety considerations, and not with the merits or demerits of the industrial dispute as such. My hon. Friends will recognise the constraints imposed upon me in that regard. It was with the safety considerations in mind that on the evening of 2nd March I instructed my officials to communicate to the French authorities my Department's minimum safe manning standards for a sea-going voyage by the ship, with the request for their cooperation in ensuring that those requirements were met. On the following morning I arranged, as the General Council of British Shipping and the


unions are aware, for a senior nautical surveyor and a senior engineer and ship surveyor to be sent to Le Havre to deal with all safety matters on the spot in close co-operation with the French authorities.
I have kept in close touch through my officials with the surveyors during and since the weekend. I understand that they have enjoyed the full co-operation of the French administration. They have also worked in close consultation with the officers and crew aboard. They have been proceeding with the safety equipment survey, and they have been much concerned with the proper functioning of the engine room machinery and the condition of the crew accommodation, which has now been restored to a satisfactory state.
As far as we can ascertain at the moment—and the information is by no means complete—there was damage to doors and crew accommodation, and there might have been damage to the machinery, but the position of the machinery is somewhat uncertain, and I would not wish to make any categorical statement on that this morning. A radio surveyor has also now joined the ship from Southampton, with a view to verifying that the radio equipment is in a satisfactory condition and issuing the necessary certificate.
These surveyors are under instructions to ensure that both the physical condition of the vessel and its manning are up to the required standards before the vessel sails. In this regard they will work closely with the French authorities. My hon. Friends asked how they would be able to check the qualifications of the crew, in so far as qualifications are required, if the crew is not unionised. Our surveyors are checking certificates of competency and the discharge books, and these inquiries will be carried out very fully. They relate to whether the crew is unionised.
I hope that the House will agree that the prompt intervention which I authorised was the right step, because of the paramount need to check on the safety conditions affecting seafarers and the ship.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the Minister started by talking about

sub-standard shipping and safety methods, and has now gone on to talk about the "Globtik Venus", will he say whether his Department has any record of the company, which has operated British ships for some time, operating sub-standard shipping and sub-standard safety?

Mr. Davis: I have no evidence to put before the House in that regard, nor was I asserting anything of the kind in what I said, which was relevant to a totally different point raised by my hon. Friend, who was referring at that stage to flags of convenience. The "Globtik Venus" is not under a flag of convenience at present. Whether the vessel is at present of a satisfactory standard is not a matter upon which I can comment, because it is for investigation by my surveyors.

Mr. Prescott: If I heard him correctly, the hon. Gentleman raised the question whether the crewing was satisfactory or sub-standard.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: indicated dissent

Mr. Prescott: It appears that I heard the hon. Gentleman incorrectly, and I apologise.

Mr. Davis: I am caught in the crossfire, which will not do my speech much good.
I want to tell the House about further developments, because it is right to set out accurately the history of these events.
On the evening of Sunday 6th March the discharge of the cargo began, and it seemed possible that the vessel would be ready to sail by the evening of Tuesday 8th March. Since then various difficulties have arisen. First, the main cargo pumps had to cease operation owing to mechanical problems and more recently owing to trouble with the diesel generators. In consequence, the latest report is that there is no power aboard, and the radio survey is held up.
Additionally, it has not yet been possible to complete the safety equipment survey. Moreover, the manning of the ship on the engineering side is not yet adequate to permit the ship to sail in a safe condition. Generally, the programme for discharging the cargo and making ready to go to sea has fallen back.
In those circumstances it is likely to be some time yet before the ship is in a fit


condition to sail. I have every confidence that my Department's surveyors will keep the paramount need of safety very much in mind in their dealings with the French authorities, senior officers on board and the owners of the vessel. I come now to the very important questions raised by my hon. Friends and also raised by the statement from the TUC this afternoon. I have not seen the precise terms of that statement, but I understand that it calls for a wide investigation into this unhappy affair. Perhaps I may start by outlining the powers which exist and then go on to tell hon. Members what I have done in this regard.
The provisions for inquiries under the Merchant Shipping Acts are clearly directed to shipping casualties, such as collisions or groundings. I think that it is extremely doubtful whether these powers could be held to extend to an inquiry into the circumstances of this case in which there was no shipping casualty as such, so there is a problem there.
In any event, an inquiry under the Merchant Shipping Acts would have to be strictly limited to what occurred on board the vessel and could not extend to cover all the circumstances surrounding the case, such as the recruitment of the boarding party in this country, about which my hon. Friends are properly deeply concerned because this matter could have wide and dangerous implications. Moreover, important witnesses—namely, the Filipino crew—are now back in their home country. Therefore, it may be difficult to make them available. I am not suggesting that that matter cannot be overcome, but it is relevant to the point that I am making.
There is the possibility, I suppose, of a tribunal of inquiry. That would need to be set up by resolution of both Houses of Parliament under the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921. As the Royal Commission on Tribunals of Inquiry reported in 1966, such tribunals should be set up as sparingly as possible and should always be confined to matters of vital public importance concerning which there is something of the nature of a crisis of confidence.
I do not deny that this was a very serious matter, but I doubt whether the setting up of a tribunal of inquiry of this kind, with the full panoply involved, even if it could be justified on other

grounds, would be the right vehicle for this matter. It is early for me to judge that. Of course, it is not entirely a matter for me. I believe that is one essentially for the Lord Chancellor. I should not want to preclude any possibility. I am merely presenting some of the problems in those two areas. In any case, it would not be desirable, even if it were possible, for such a procedure to be established before the question of criminal proceedings had been investigated. It is to that matter that I now turn.

Mr. John Mendelson: As my hon. Friend rightly indicated, I am particularly concerned about the methods used by the company to recruit the armed mercenaries. The recruitment was similar to that adopted by those who ship people abroad to take part in foreign wars as armed mercenaries. Does that not underline the seriousness of the position? Should not my hon. Friend go further and commit the Government to an inquiry on that aspect of the matter, irrespective whether the Director of Public Prosecutions decides to take criminal action?

Mr. Davis: I cannot commit the Government to do that, because I have not had the opportunity of conferring with the Lord Chancellor whether in any event this would be a satisfactory form of inquiry to set up. I was about to consider whether there was any element of criminality in recruiting people to undertake this task—I use a neutral term—or in their carrying weapons on board the ship. I thought that those matters had to be investigated by the authorities which deal with the prosecution of offences.
I thought that there was sufficient evidence to justify my drawing to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General the facts surrounding the whole operation. Obviously, any other action will have to be considered in the light of my right hon. Friend's views and those of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East questioned the Attorney-General this afternoon about this and that my right hon. Friend indicated that he had passed the matter on to the DPP. That authority should determine whether criminal proceedings should be taken. It will require investigation and the taking of evidence to see whether it is right


to bring these matters before the criminal courts.
I hope that the House will share my view that, pending consideration of that question, it would be premature to take the question of other forms of inquiry any further. Since investigation of allegations of criminality are paramount, we should be anxious to avoid diminishing the prospects of bringing charges, if charges should be brought.

Mr. Prescott: The Merchant Shipping Acts involve regulations that must be observed by those who recruit seamen. Surely that is one possible sphere for investigation. The certification of some of the men involved from the fishing industry is a matter over which the Minister has control and which could be investigated. The Minister has powers to suspend a certificate if a person admits in a public statement that he was drunk or unfit to board a tanker. Surely he should investigate that aspect of the situation.

Mr. Davis: I have already said that we wish to ensure that the people who are said to be about to sail this vessel are properly qualified so to do. The mercenaries were not recruited, so far as I can see, to sail the ship but to do an act which may or may not be illegal—namely, to seize possession of the ship.
I do not want to enter into the merits or demerits of the industrial dispute. My hon. Friends have recognised that I am not at liberty to do that. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East about the recruitment of the people who would be in charge of the ship were it to sail is irrelevant to the case. The question whether any of these people should be brought to book under various sections of the Merchant Shipping Acts for incompetence or for being guilty of misconduct so as to be unfit to discharge their duties—I think that that is what my hon. Friend was saying—is, in a sense, less important than the more urgent task of investigating what could constitute very serious criminal activity. I am sure that my hon. Friend will not dispute that if one must apply an order of priorities to these investigations, the criminal investigations must take priority. But I do not rule out any possibility at this stage. It is just

that, in a very difficult case indeed, I am trying to fix a proper order of priorities for investigation.
Clearly, the circumstances of the case are very unusual. Therefore in considering questions of this kind, we are beset with difficulties. We have the situation in which an industrial dispute occurred when the ship was under the Bahamian flag with a crew of Filipinos engaged under Bahamian articles of agreement. The ship is in a French port; it is thus within the jurisdiction of the French authorities. But the vessel is now on the United Kingdom register, and our Administration, therefore, has a responsibility for safety, about which the House has been concerned tonight. This, together with the fact that the Filipino crew have been repatriated, would create considerable difficulties for any inquiry which sought to cover all the circumstances of this case.
Therefore, I repeat that I cannot at this stage dispose finally of the question whether an inquiry would be possible, but I think that what I have said is sufficient to underline the difficulties in holding a full and fruitful investigation into the whole affair.
What are the next steps? I am keeping in close touch with my colleagues in the Department of Employment concerning the possible use of conciliation services. I believe that the unions and the owners are keeping this possibility in mind. I certainly hope that some means of settling the dispute can be found, otherwise it seems likely that industrial action against Globtik ships, including two very large tankers on the United Kingdom register, will escalate and the matter will become increasingly difficult to resolve.
In the meantime, I and my officials will continue to keep in very close touch with the situation at Le Havre, and I shall make further reports to the House as necessary.
I take a serious view of the matter. I hope that my remarks bear that out. As I have indicated, I think that both of my hon. Friends were absolutely right in ventilating the matter in the House. It is a great pity that the debate has been held at this late hour and that more hon. Members could not be present.
Whatever the question of criminality or otherwise, I cannot believe that any


person in his right mind can believe today that one can do anything but maximum harm to the cause of industrial relations generally by embarking on the course that this company has sought to establish. I can only hope that some good sense will be brought to bear on this matter. There is a non-executive director of the company who is a Member of Parliament and has shadow responsibilities for Wales. I must remind him that as a non-executive director he carries responsibility fully with that of the other directors who are executive directors.
I have already indicated to the hon. Member for Cathcart, who must be sensitive about these matters, that his intervention, too, to advance the cause of common sense in this matter, would be very useful.
I end where I began, by saying that I hope that this unfortunate saga will not be repeated and that something can be done as a result of what has happened over the last few days and the helpful attitude on the part of the unions and the GCBS, and of my hon. Friends in raising this matter, to resolve this situation and to ensure that it never occurs again.

1.9 a.m.

Mr. Cecil Parkinson: A little while ago I intervened briefly in the speech of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) and asked him what evidence he had that damage to machinery and so on had been done by the invaders—if one may call them that. The hon. Gentleman called them mercenaries. I do not know how one should describe them. However, at that moment, one began to develop certain doubts about whether the hon. Gentleman was really serious.
Does the hon. Gentleman really think that an owner would employ people to damage his vessel or the machinery of that vessel so as to make it unsafe and unseaworthy? It would have been a very strange thing indeed for Mr. Tikkoo to do. The truth is, as the Minister confirmed, that there was damage to doors and so on, but there was no damage to machinery. There was no evidence that the people who tried to take over the ship were wholly bent on causing destruction on it.
I listened very carefully to the hon. Members for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson)—and I apologise to him for not being here for the whole of his speech. The hon. Member, with whom I rarely agree, has a well-deserved reputation for speaking in a very convincing and knowledgeable way. But tonight he was hesitant, and he appeared to be reading a great deal of his speech. I formed the distinct impression that he was reading from a brief prepared for him and which he only partially understood.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East also has a well-earned reputation in this House for speaking knowledgeably about shipping matters. He was less contrived and much more straight-forward than his hon. Friend. He said that he hated flags of convenience because they smacked of tax evasion and the contravention of safety regulations. But he has spent his working life honourably fighting the shipowners, and to me it seemed as if he regarded this debate as a chance to settle a few old scores, and to pursue the principle for which he has spent most of his life fighting.

Mr. Clinton Davis: What I am interested in is not the hon. Member's comments—completely unmerited—about the speeches of my hon. Friends, because they can look after themselves. I want to know whether he believes that Mr. Tikkoo's action in recruiting the mercenaries was prudent, and whether he applauds or deplores that action. Also, what is the Opposition's position on flags of convenience?

Mr. Parkinson: I am not going to be drawn like that. I would be ruled out of order if I attempted to answer any of those questions.

Mr. John Mendelson: Hypocrisy.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member talks about hypocrisy before he has listened to my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) should not use discourteous remarks. It would be better if that were not said, because it is discourteous even though it is not always unparliamentary. If it was said, perhaps he would withdraw it.

Mr. John Mendelson: I intended to be discourteous, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member has misrepresented me from the moment he got to his feet. I did not read my speech. I simply quoted a comment on safety from the National Union of Seamen. He deserves discourteous remarks.

Mr. Parkinson: When I was a student at Cambridge—

Mr. John Mendelson: That was a long time ago.

Mr. Parkinson: Yes, it was a long time ago, but it was several years after the hon. Member would have qualified to be there. I remember a famous case in which a person was libelled by being wrongly accused of being a thief. The judge said that although it was true the man had been wrongly accused, he would not make an award to him because it was no disgrace to be lowered in the eyes of wrong-thinking people. The hon. Gen-man, in that case, is a wrong-thinking person, and his views do not worry me in the slightest.
I should like to develop my argument because I think that it will answer the hon. Gentleman. What I have been doing so far is being polite and commenting on the speeches that preceded my own. The whole debate has been elaborately contrived. Labour Members have shown great ingenuity in contriving to have a debate on this subject. It is a tribute to the good sense and tolerance of the Chair that we have had the debate, but it has had about it an air of being contrived.
We have all known what we wanted to debate. We have had to attach this debate to the peg of safety, and hon. Members on the Government Benches have woven their arguments around this thread of safety. But what must have occurred to hon. Members who have listened to the debate is that what we have really been discussing is the fact that there is a vessel in private ownership and it is manned by a non-union crew. Both those facts are distasteful to Labour Members, and the two hon. Gentlemen opposite have used exactly the arguments that they use on every occasion when they do not like to see non-union labour being used, namely, that safety is involved. They say that vessels using non-union labour

are less safe, and in the name of promoting their interests and persecuting private ownership and non-union factories, vessels and sites, they make these attacks in the high-minded name of safety.

Mr. Clinton Davis: rose—

Mr. Parkinson: No, I shall not give way.

Mr. Clinton Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is unusual, is it not, for the Opposition speaker to intervene after I have spoken? I agreed to that on the basis that the hon Gentleman's remarks would be short and confined to certain points. He has now embarked upon a farrago of nonsense, irrelevancies and insults which do him no justice and do the House—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman is an authority on nonsense in this House, and I do not intend to be put off my remarks by anything that he says.

Mr. Clinton Davis: rose—

Mr. Parkinson: No, I shall not give way. I intend to make my case. The hon. Gentleman is trying in his normal aggressive way to dictate to the Chair what I should say. I listened carefully to his remarks and to those of his hon. Friends, and I now intend to make my own argument.
I was saying that I believe that this whole debate has been contrived and that in the name of promoting a debate on safety at sea of hon. Gentlemen opposite have taken the opportunity to air their grievances about private ownership, nonunion sites and non-union ships.
Let me, for a moment or two, put the opposite case to that which has been put by Government Members. I have no interest at all to declare in this matter. I am just putting another point of view. The first point I make is that the men who were manning this ship were engaged on standard contracts, which were approved by the Filipino Government, at agreed rates of pay.

Mr. Clinton Davis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. What relevance has this to the issue of safety?
The question to which the hon. Gentleman is alluding is within the terms of an industrial dispute, which I eschewed to deal with in my remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The debate has gone extremely wide. I wish that I had heard more about safety than I have done, but I think that in all fairness the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, South (Mr. Parkinson) must be allowed to develop his argument in his own way and relate it to safety.

Mr. Parkinson: I was saying that hon. Members opposite sought to attach their arguments to safety and the implication was that this vessel was manned at below the going rate by untrained people and was, therefore, less safe than if it had been a British ship.
I am answering the points which the hon. Member for Penistone and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East were trying to make by implication but which they did not have the guts to spell out. They suggested and insinuated them.
The people working on the ship had been engaged on contracts that had been approved by their own Government and at agreed rates. The contracts were voluntarily entered into and the company had no notice of any dissatisfaction on the part of the employees until it received notice from the ITF that two men were supposed to have written to the firm in December. These letters have not been revealed—

Mr. Prescott: They have.

Mr. Parkinson: The company has not yet received the names of the people alleged to have made the complaint.

Mr. Prescott: They are available.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has had the chance to put his case.
I understand that the company immediately offered to pay agreed United Kingdom rates if they were higher than the rates on which the men had been engaged. That offer was rejected. I am stating facts that are as well substantiated as any put by hon. Members opposite.
Subsequently, a demand was made by the ITF for the sum of $242,000. The

company asked for a make-up of the sum, but received no evidence of how it was arrived at or how the back pay was calculated. All that has been received from Mr. Blyth is a demand that he has been unable to substantiate.
The company claims that there has been no tax advantage from its being registered in the Bahamas. If there has been an advantage, it has been to the crew members who have been totally free from all PAYE. Since they are Filipinos trading all over the world and are not British citizens, that seems perfectly reasonable.
These facts are probably disputed by the other side, but they are another point of view and all I am saying is that there are two points of view and two tales that do not marry up.

Mr. Prescott: That is because the hon. Gentleman does not understand the facts.

Mr. Parkinson: There is no way in which my understanding could be married with the stories of hon. Members opposite. There is undoubtedly a major dispute between the parties and not even the facts are agreed. The company has made clear that it is prepared to put the matter before the ACAS. I think that an inquiry is needed and the ACAS may be capable of conducting such an inquiry to bring the House nearer to the facts. It is not helpful for hon. Members opposite to work out their lifelong prejudices in this case.

Mr. Prescott: The reason that there are two views is that one is informed and the other is uninformed. The hon. Gentleman has given two examples, and there is an answer for each. First, the ITF rate is well known. It is the average for all European seafarers—and the British rate is the lowest in Europe. The British flag is almost a flag of convenience in this respect. Second, as for the safety aspect, I have here the statement of Mr. Miller, the man who was paid £600 for raising the crew on behalf of Mr. Tikkoo. He said that he
… bought two firemen's axes and went on board. They had been drinking, including me.
That presumably is why Mr. Tikkoo could not rely on this man to carry out acts on board which he regarded as responsible. They were drunk when they went on board and it was in that state that they committed the acts they did. At


least the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen on Scotland and Wales understand this view because they are members of, or involved with, that company—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is making a very long intervention: he must not embark on a second speech.

Mr. Parkinson: I have often thought that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East has a mental block about shipping. I did not make any of the points that he thinks he has just answered. I said—I will repeat it since he finds it so difficult to understand—that as soon as the company became aware of the situation, it offered to pay the United Kingdom rates. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the company should have paid the Filipinos more than British seamen, that it was taking advantage of the Filipinos by not paying them more than the rates the hon. Gentleman has spent his life trying to achieve?
There is a major misunderstanding in this case, a total lack of agreement even about the facts. I do not feel qualified to say which story is absolutely right. However, I should like the company's offer taken up, to refer the matter to ACAS, so that an independent body can determine the facts. The company is convinced that it has a case and it is determined to stand by the facts as it knows them. We shall have to find out whether that is reasonable.
It helps no one to present a lopsided view of this situation, as the only one there is. I have deliberately made it clear that I was simply putting another point of view. Hon. Members opposite are not even prepared to concede that simple exercise—[Interruption.] I do not particularly have a view about how the owner reclaimed possession of his ship.

Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Member has ranged more widely than his original remarks seemed to contemplate. Would he now be a little straight with the House on the question of the mercenaries, on which he has been a little cagey? Is he not aware that the General Council for British Shipping, a reputable organisation representing British shipowners, has deplored the conduct of the Globtik company in recruiting these mercenaries?
Does he not think that it is hardly conducive to safety or good industrial relations for that sort of conduct to be perpetrated or perpetuated? He owes the House an explanation of his position, which he has so far signally failed to give. He has studiously avoided this matter and the time has come for him to state where he stands on it.

Mr. Parkinson: I do not think that anybody who has listened to my remarks with even a remotely open mind could have any doubt about where I stand. I am simply saying that there are two points of view, that at present there is a singular lack of common ground between them, and that there is a need for an inquiry by an independent body—possibly ACAS—to establish the facts. The company has said that it is prepared to refer the matter to ACAS and to have an independent body judge its case.
The Under-Secretary seems to think that I and the Opposition should have a view about how a shipowner should reclaim his ship. This was not the way in which I would reclaim a ship of mine, but I do not own any ships. I do not see any reason—nor do the Opposition—to hold a strong view about that matter. It is not the way in which I would have behaved, but, as I have said, I do not own ships and I have not been provoked in the way that Mr. Tikkoo has. I suspect that Mr. Tikkoo will never again try to regain possession of one of his ships in this way.
Unreasonable actions provoke unreasonable actions. This was not an incident in which anyone can take any pride. It is not a glorious chapter that will be written in the glorious history of British merchant shipping. Nor is it something that should be settled in a party political atmosphere in the House of Commons. It should be referred to an independent body and it should be settled by the parties to the dispute—those who work on vessels and those who own them.
Prejudiced and biased interventions certainly do not help. I do not think that the Minister's intervention was particularly conciliatory. Without actually saying so he made it quite clear where his interests lay. I believe that this incident should be referred to an independent body. That is the position that I support.

Orders of the Day — RURAL TRANSPORT

1.32 a.m.

Sir Timothy Kitson: After that rather exciting debate, the points that I wish to raise, though possibly just as important, will not give rise to as much discord between myself and the Under-Secretary. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for having had to keep him up until this late hour.
When I was elected Member of Parliament for the Richmond constituency in 1949 we had a very comprehensive public transport system in the area. Richmond is the largest constituency in acreage in England. It is 85 miles long and 45 miles across, with one voter to every 11 acres. There is no concentration of population. Northallerton and Richmond, with populations of about 7,000 to 8,000, are the two largest towns. There are some 370 villages.
Therefore, people living in the area have to travel long distances for their everyday requirements—to get to work, to visit the doctor, to visit hospital, to do their shopping, or even to draw their pensions. The Richmond constituency is similar to many others in North Yorkshire—Thirsk and Malton, Ripon, Skipton and Scarborough.
What I am now faced with, in common with other Members of Parliament for the North Yorkshire area, is a very severe cut-back in bus services with all the hardship and difficulties that this will create. In the Richmond constituency in 1959 we had not only the main London to Edinburgh railway line but also four branch lines and over 30 passenger stations. These branch lines have been closed one by one following the Beeching plan and now all that remains is one main line station at Northallerton.
I attended a number of inquiries into these closures. All of them were opposed, and in all of them we were given the assurance that a good bus service as an alternative would be provided to meet the requirements of the general public. Those services were in fact provided and have been running for a number of years.
A recent publication dealing with every service provided by the North Yorkshire County Council, including a paper on transport headed "Time for a Change?"

sets out our problems, and I shall quote from it:
The ability to travel from one place to another is an important part of life. Whether the movement is for business or domestic purposes, and whether it is of goods or of persons, efficient transport is of great importance, especially in times of financial restraint.
Unfortunately, certain sections of the community experience travel difficulties both by public and by private transport. Attempts to deal with these difficulties can result in the creation of other problems.
The provision of transport services is especially difficult in North Yorkshire because it is a large rural county with a low density of population and because it contains many towns and villages of architectural value, and two National Parks. This means the cost per resident of highway and public transport provision is much higher in North Yorkshire than in many other parts of the country and that the provision of new facilities must be balanced against important environmental and amenity considerations.
The main change over the coming years is likely to be the continuing increase in car ownership and, consequently, in general road traffic. However, a large section of the population is likely to remain without the use of a car for the foreseeable future and the problems of this group are just as important as those of the motorist.
That introduction to the discussion paper highlights the problem facing us today.
In a rural area, many of us look upon rural transport as a social service. The rural community does not enjoy many of the public services which are provided in the urban areas, because of the lack of concentration of population. For example, it is often a long way to the nearest swimming pool, library, museum, hospital or, indeed, any form of entertainment, be it a cinema, a theatre or an evening class. Therefore, while one recognises that there will be a steady increase in the use of the private motor car, there will always be those who are less fortunate and who have to rely on public transport. For them transport is an essential service, to be subsidised by the local authorities.
With the Government's cut-backs in their rate support grant to the county council, the problem of a subsidy to help the bus services running in the rural areas has become more acute in recent months. A comprehensive review of the bus services run by the United Automobile Services Limited for Richmond-shire was undertaken in 1976, and some rationalisation of services provided for the district was planned. This was


approved by the Traffic Commissioners at their hearing on 2nd December 1976.
The rationalisation was the result of approaches made by United Automobile Services Limited to the North Yorkshire County Council for the saving of money on certain uneconomic routes, and when the new services were brought into being in early 1977 this was achieved. As well as a number of services being cut out, some improvements also took place where they were needed.
Following the Local Government Act 1972, the North Yorkshire County Council is the transportation authority, and under that Act the county council received a grant from the Department of the Environment—now from the Department of Transport—to assist it in helping to meet the request of bus companies for support of uneconomic services.
Before April 1974, the then district councils as well as the county councils, by reason of Section 34 of the Transport Act 1968, were able to make grants towards the assistance of uneconomic bus services for the benefit of persons residing in rural areas. There was much to be said for the district councils being so enabled, and also for the district councils to receive grants from the Department of Transport so that they could make subventions for the support of rural transport services. The district councils knew the local requirements, and, with additional assistance from the county council, were able to keep uneconomic services running.
The previous Richmondshire District Council was one of the first local authorities to use Section 34 at a time when bus services were being withdrawn from Swaledale and Teesdale, and, as a result of the action of the district council, the county council and the Department of the Environment, financial support kept buses running in Swaledale and Teesdale, and has been doing so since then.
The United Automobile Services Limited wrote to the Chief Executive Officer of the North Yorkshire County Council on 10th February stating that, unless the county council could increase its revenue support for 1977–78, it would have to withdraw some 30 services, reduce the frequency of six others, and to close the depots at Ripon, Pickering, Northallerton and Hawes, with the result

that some 100 staff would be made redundant.
The North Yorkshire County Council had offered support in the sum of £347,000, which included support for urban services in Scarborough, and according to United Services, excluding the Scarborough support, the support offered would be a maximum of £282,000. The bus service estimates its overall shortage at £537,000, which shows a shortfall of some £255,000.
Rural transport experiments are being initiated in various parts of North Yorkshire, and include parts of Richmondshire and the west side of Hambleton District Council. It would seem ridiculous for further bus services to be withdrawn while these experiments are being considered, and I am sure that we are all aware that, if services are withdrawn, any recommendations put forward by the study group which would call for new bus services will be extremely difficult to implement.
The Richmond Bus Study was only recently completed, fare increases were granted in February, and now once again bus services are in jeopardy. In Swaledale and Wensleydale, if bus services are withdrawn, there will be further losses of rural population. The Dales areas have suffered depopulation for many years, and the possibility of this being accelerated by the total lack of public transport is of great concern to all of us.
For years now, there have been talks and discussions about modification of bus services. I realise that 32-seater buses are rarely full in many rural areas, and many of us would like to have seen the introduction of minibuses, or even, as in Scandinavia, some use of Post Office services to help in public transport, though I recognise that there are security difficulties and arguments against that. Nevertheless, unless some Government take quick action to remedy the continual reduction of public transport the rural areas, services will slowly disappear and it will be a case of those in the rural areas once again suffering.
Depopulation of the rural areas creates other problems for different Government Departments, and it is in the interest of all of us to try to stem it. The severe cut in the rate support grant to local authorities has aggravated the situation.
I hope that the Minister, bearing in mind the studies he intends to undertake in this area and in Devon will have discussions with the local authorities to see what, if anything, can be done at least to postpone any further cuts until the study group has had time to report.
Finally, I want to quote a letter sent to me on 3rd March, only four days ago, by the Hambleton District Council. It says:
My Council have asked that you be advised of their concern for the future of rural bus services exemplified by the representations now made by subsidiaries of the National Bus Company.
I have been asked to solicit your support for improvements in the situation, possibly through increases in transport supplementary grant.
My Council acknowledge that the problem of rural transport has been with us from time immemorial and that the answers cannot be obtained overnight. However, it is felt that only continued representations in this respect are likely to impress upon central government the real problems which are faced by members of the rural community, particularly in times of ever increasing transport costs.
All of us from rural areas have seen many such letters, and this one again points the figure at the problem facing us. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to give us some encouragement, bearing in mind that his study group is about to go to work and that we must try to keep some services until it is in a position to report.

1.45 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T Kitson) has raised the very important issue of rural transport. I am only sorry that we could not have had the debate at a more suitable time of day. The hon. Gentleman put the problem very eloquently and I would assure him at the beginning of my remarks that I take the whole problem very seriously indeed.
As the hon. Gentleman will know from his own interventions during transport Question Time, we are taking a very long and profound look at this whole question in our consultations and discussions that will lead up to the transport White Paper later in the year.
I would like to state what we are doing now to help immediately with the problem of rural transport. First, we are giving direct financial support to the bus

industry by way of new bus grant and fuel duty rebate. These two amount to about £70 million in 1976–77. Secondly, it has been our policy, and we have stated it on many occasions, most recently in the Department of Transport Circular 1/77, to accept proposals made in the context of counties' transport policies and programmes that aim to steer available bus revenue support to the maintenance of minimum levels of service especially in rural areas.
Expenditure proposed by shire counties for this purpose has been accepted in full for transport supplementary grant for 1976–77. What I am saying is that all the demands that have been made by the shire counties, including North Yorkshire, have been met in full, and that we can give no higher priority than to meet what is asked for in full.
This amounted to £41 million in England and Wales in 1976–77 and £36 million in 1977–78 at November 1975 prices. It would be particularly unfortunate if the funds allocated were not now to be spent on supporting the essential lifeline which rural dwellers rely on to get to school, to work, to the shops and to other essential facilities like hospitals, doctors and welfare services.
But that unfortunately appears to be the likely prospect in North Yorkshire. Having suggested in its TPP that it would spend that amount of money—£765,000 at November 1975 prices—I now understand that it is proposing to reduce planned revenue support to £550,000 in the next financial year. Again I am referring to the "funny money" estimate at November 1975 prices.
That is a considerable reduction and it is that, and that alone, that has caused the severe problems to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The two NBC operators—West Yorkshire Road Car and United Automobile—with routes in North Yorkshire, have said that if this reduction takes place they will have to make massive cuts in their services. West Yorkshire Road Car, operating mainly in the south of the county, has issued a Press release saying that 35 towns and villages in its operating area would be left without any bus service, and a further 50 would suffer significant reductions. United Automobile has written to the county saying that 30 rural services in its operating


area would be withdrawn, six others reduced in frequency and 100 staff made redundant.
Let us be clear what this may mean. It may cut the link between the old-age pensioner and her nearby town where she draws her pension. It may mean that buses taking schoolchildren to school are withdrawn. I understand it will certainly mean that bus depots are closed and more men thrown out of work. I hope that North Yorkshire does not wish to cause results like these. But I fear that it will be the consequence of the reductions which I believe that it is seeking to make. The figure which it has produced for the next financial year—£765,000—is out of a total North Yorkshire budget of some £130 million, and that is not much when what is at stake is the wellbeing of whole communities and especially the poor, the old and the young within them. I am not inciting North Yorkshire to profligacy or to overspending. I am, however, asking whether, within that overall budget, it has taken account of the dire consequences of failing to provide what it said it would, especially when we in central Government have paid it grant to help it carry out its policies and it is now going back on them.
I have put the spotlight on North Yorkshire not simply because its policy meeting on Friday of this week will make or break rural transport in the area, but because counties have the statutory responsibility for developing policies that will promote the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient system of public passenger transport to meet the needs of their counties and, in the furtherance of this duty, the powers to pay grant accordingly. Local authorities are in the hot seat, because they are best able to assess local needs. We cannot and must not absolve them of that responsibility.
However, I agree with the hon Gentleman that central Government have a responsibility to get the balance right between, for example, the needs of urban and rural areas and between expenditure on private and public transport. Over the past few years, the trend in transport expenditure has been away from roads and towards public transport. In 1970–71 52 per cent. went on roads, and 24 per cent. on public transport; but 1975–76

35 per cent. was going on roads and 45 per cent. on public transport. Our priority here is therefore apparent, and we take account of the needs of rural areas just as much as we do the needs of of inner cities and major urban areas. But we can do this only by working through the local authorities and the programmes they adopt.
The consultation document on transport policy, for example, stated that it may well be necessary to increase the sums provided for bus subsidy to accommodate an adequate level of selective support in areas such as North Yorkshire, but that could be done only by making reductions in other areas of transport expenditure. What is perhaps disturbing is the question whether, even if we find the resources, we can be certain that they will be spent in the way intended. I hope that North Yorkshire, especially, takes that on board when it comes to discuss these matters again with the bus companies next Friday.
I believe that the needs of people who live in the country and do not have access to a car demand that a sound basic network of conventional buses should be maintained, subsidised as necessary. But there are some situations where the demand for public transport is so small and dispersed that conventional buses no longer represent the best value for money. There is a need to look at new forms of transport operation which might be more suitable for low density rural areas, and might provide more flexible services at lower costs. A number of studies are being conducted, one of them in a small part of the hon. Member's constituency. I am sorry that it is a small part, but resources are restricted. The studies are going ahead in four rural areas of Great Britain and we are looking at other less conventional methods of transport for rural areas.
Very shortly a local working party, drawn from local authorities, the bus industry and voluntary bodies will meet to finalise recommendations for experimental schemes in North Yorkshire. Later this month I shall take the chair at a meeting of the national level steering committee set up to co-ordinate the programme, and representing local authority, bus industry and voluntary interests at national level. Subject to their endorsement, experimental schemes will start up during the


summer and these will give us practical evidence of the scope for complementing the conventional rural bus with less conventional services.
These schemes should give us a clear idea of the way forward, but, like the hon. Member I do not think that it is sufficient to rely on this sort of experiment. We must for the main part do our best with the existing stage services, and I hope, therefore, that North Yorkshire will take the consequences of its intended moves very much to heart. The situation in such areas has been spelt out by the hon. Member and myself this evening. It could be most severe, and I hope that whatever it does, the area will take very much to heart its responsibilities for providing a clear and stable level of public transport.
I hope that I have said enough to indicate our concern about the matter and our hope that something better than the prospect that we now face will emerge from the consultation which I hope will carry on between the county and the bus companies.

Orders of the Day — VACCINE-DAMAGED CHILDREN

1.57 a.m.

Mr. Jack Ashley: This debate is being held for three reasons. The first is that the whole immunisation programme is being jeopardised by the refusal of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to respond to grave public disquiet about compensation for vaccine-damaged children, and the conflict of medical experts about the whooping cough vaccine. The second is that the case for compensation needs to be pressed, in view of my right hon. Friend's defiance of parliamentary opinion and overwhelming public support. The third is that my right hon. Friend's statement that the gains of whooping-cough vaccine outweigh the risks has now been shown in parliamentary answers and other sources of information to be completely without foundation.
It is a matter of deep regret to me that my right hon. Friend's response to the parents and their supporters like myself has been to go on television and accuse them of damaging the immunisation scheme, whereas he is responsible for the

damage. I am also sorry that he chose to reply to me by making a personal attack, accusing me of arrogance. I notice that he has run away tonight and sent one of his junior Ministers. The House will draw its own conclusions.
I lose no sleep over his accusations, but I must tell the House two things in his absence. He has seriously misjudged the people he is dealing with. If he believes that he can gag them by smears or personal insults he has made a grave miscalculation. Those involved in this campaign have endlessly repeated their support for the immunisation programme generally, with reservations about whooping cough, and they have acted with dignity and restraint. Making provocative attacks upon them will in no way deter them from seeking compensation and an independent inquiry. If anything, it will have the reverse effect. My right hon. Friend's failure to learn that lesson is a grave reflection on his political judgment.
Secondly, the Secretary of State is directly and personally responsible for damaging the immunisation scheme as a whole by failing to respond to the widely supported call for compensation, and to the serious conflict within the medical profession about whooping-cough vaccine, He is crying in the wilderness, asking people to support the immunisation programme while they are anxious about these two basic issues, and the anxiety of many people spills over into a confused rejection of all immunisation. He should therefore reconsider his refusal and take immediate action, giving a commitment to compensation, and order an independent inquiry.
In addition, my right hon. Friend should work in close consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and the Environment to set up a working party and co-ordinate all its efforts. He should make a special appeal to all doctors, urging them actively to recommend immunisation, particularly against diptheria and tetanus, and even more particularly against poliomyelitis, and to display departmental publicity posters in every surgery.
The Department of Education and Science should notify the parents of every schoolchild of the need for immunisation and the benefits to be derived from


it. In conjunction with the local medical officers of health it should arrange for those children who were not immunised at the normal pre-school age, and whose parents agree, to be immunised in schools.
On the question of compensation, the Government have a clear and over-riding moral responsibility to pay the children who are severely damaged, because they are vaccinated primarily for the benefit of others who are too young to be vaccinated themselves. The main benefit is to the community at large, yet all the risk is to the individual.
The Secretary of State's intention to await the Pearson Commission report on civil liability is merely a delaying tactic, because he is not seriously going to reject parliamentary and public opinion in the unlikely event of Pearson's recommending against compensation for these children.
I know that the Secretary of State argues that the Government encourage other procedures, such as dental treatment, which can cause damage, and says that he must also consider these cases. It is rather a pathetic excuse for inaction, because it completely disregards the fact that children have dental treatment for their own benefit, whereas, as I have explained, they are vaccinated primarily for the social good, and the benefit of others.
I am also aware of the other limp excuse that is made to avoid payment of compensation—that to do so would create an anomaly. But anomalies abound already. If there is to be complete equality, there must be no differential benefit for any handicapped people—no industrial injuries scheme, no pneumoconiosis scheme, no occupational sickness scheme, no earnings-related benefits and no criminal injuries compensation scheme. Only when the Secretary of State abolishes them can he legitimately advance the excuse about anomalies.
As for the difficulties of implementing a scheme, six countries already have compensation schemes for vaccine-damaged children and have managed to overcome the difficulties. Naturally, each foreign Government scheme varies according to local conditions, history and attitudes, despite the common underlying principle that compensation should be paid to the victims of vaccine damage. The criteria

is uniform, but the Danish attitude is interesting. They say that definite proof is not needed and that a reasonable presumption of a casual connection between vaccination and damage would suffice.
Regarding the need for an independent inquiry into the whooping-cough vaccine, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made great play, in the Adjournment debate on 17th February, of the advice of the experts, accusing me of insisting that "the medical experts" were wrong. The Secretary of State made the following false statement about me in that debate:
by insisting that he is right and that the medical experts are wrong he is creating serious dangers for children whose health and lives may be put at stake."—[Official Report, 17th February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 886.]
The Secretary of State knows full well that I was not maintaining that "the medical experts" were wrong. Medical experts are not confined to those serving on the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Some eminent experts take a different view from those who do serve on that Committee. I was contending that there was a conflict between the medical experts and that that was one of the reasons why we needed an independent inquiry. I now invite the Secretary of State to make a public retraction of the false statement that he made to the House of Commons.
The Secretary of State maintains that there is no need for an independent inquiry, and says that he and the joint committee are convinced that the gains from the whooping-cough vaccine outweigh the risks. There are, he says, only two children a year seriously brain damaged by the vaccine whereas four children a year suffer brain damage from whooping-cough itself. These are interesting figures, backed by the full authority of the Department and advanced to support the continuation of a vaccination programme affecting millions of children. When they are challenged, the Secretary of State merely abuses those who dare put questions, and refuses to hold an inquiry.
Let us look first at the Secretary of State's claim that there are only two cases of brain damage per year from the vaccine. They are based, according to the Minister's own admission, on doctors' reports of adverse reactions, made to the


Committee on Safety of Medicines. Yet the Secretary of State has also admitted that the majority of adverse reactions are not reported. The shamefaced phrase, reluctantly dragged out of him, was that these figures "could be on the low side". He can say that again.
If most cases of vaccine damage are not reported by the doctors, how can the Minister still maintain that there are only two cases a year of vaccine brain damage when the figures are based on these inaccurate returns? His Department has already publicly admitted that its information is insufficient to make reliable estimates. It is an Alice-in-Wonderland situation.
The Minister's argument is therefore demolished at the outset, before one has even begun to consider the views of the other "medical experts". One of them, Professor Gordon Stewart, of Glasgow University, maintains from his own experience that there are eight cases of vaccine brain damage a year. He says that that is a minimum figure. Let us compare that with the figure of two put forward by the joint committee and the Minister, based on their admittedly inadequate data.
The Secretary of State quoted a couple of newspapers in the Adjournment debate because they supported him—carefully omitting to mention those that opposed him. I wonder whether he saw the comprehensive and well-informed article in The Sunday Times on Sunday.
He will have seen from the article that the Committee on Safety of Medicines warns of naive interpretations of its data and says that people should ensure that any interpretations placed on the figures should be clearly stated to be their own. not those of the committee, and that the answers to many questions require a search of original reports. The Secretary of State did not make it clear in the Adjournment debate that the interpretation on these figures was not that of the Committee on Safety but his own. Perhaps he would care to explain that to the House. He may also like to comment on the fact that no search of the original reports of complications of whooping-cough vaccination has been made by this committee.
A further demolition charge has been put under the Secretary of State by the

Chairman of the Joint Committee on Safety of Medicines, Sir Eric Scowen. Perhaps that is another reason for the absence of the Secretary of State tonight, after his speech in the Adjournment debate was challenged. Commenting on the reports of adverse reactions to drugs, Sir Eric said that usually 10 per cent. or 15 per cent. of the cases were reported to the committee, but it was impossible to say whether the same would happen with a vaccine. He added the significant and ominous comment:
I don't know why the Secretary of State gave a figure for adverse effect of whooping cough vaccine. I would not have given one. The data are not sufficently reliable.
The Secretary of State has not merely got a weak case. He has got no case, and he should withdraw.
Next we should examine the other figure that the Secretary of State so confidently deployed in the Adjournment debate, which is that four children a year were damaged from whooping cough itself. It has been admitted, as I suspected. that this is a departmental figure, based on the paper of Miller and Fletcher, published on 17th January 1976, which studied the severity of 8,000 cases of whooping cough—that is, half of the average of 16,000 cases of whooping cough a year. That report supposedly found two cases of brain damage in the 8,000 cases—ergo, there must be four cases a year in the average 16,000 cases of whooping cough each year, said the DHSS.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State omitted to tell the House that one of the cases was of doubtful origin because the 1-year-old child had recovered from whooping cough five weeks earlier. Unfortunately, the Minister had also omitted to tell the House that both of these children recovered.
In addition to these vital factors, a statistician has said that it is statistically doubtful to draw very precise conclusions from figures such as these because the incidence is so low.
So in fact there is no convincing case for arguing that there are four cases of severe brain damage per year from whooping cough. It is on this astoundingly flimsy foundation that the whole of the whooping-cough vaccination scheme, involving millions of children, has been sustained. It is a sad and sorry policy,


which will be irretrievably damaging to all those concerned.
The Secretary of State should recognise the validity of these arguments and not simply brush them aside. They torpedo his case, which is already waterlogged and listing very heavily. Any attempt to salvage the wreckage of such a discredited policy will only damage him and his Department further. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have unanimously criticised the Secretary of State, and public opinion is against him.
The charges against the Secretary of State are very serious, and I have no pleasure at all in making them. They are that he has made a false statement in the House. abused people who challenged him, hidden relevant facts in the dispute, used figures of vaccine damage that are inaccurate, quoted figures of whooping cough damage that are unfounded, claimed that the gains from whooping-cough vaccine outweigh the risks on scandalously inadequate data, refused to accept a reasoned request for compensation, and defied parliamentary opinion. In the process he has damaged the whole immunisation programme, which is vital to the lives and health of our children.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to think again, to stop assuming that those who challenge him are necessarily hostile to him. He must know by now that we will never be browbeaten, that all those Back Benchers who unanimously criticised him on 8th February are as anxious as he is, but that they will not be ridden over roughshod by any Minister, however eminent. They are prepared to show that the House of Commons is more powerful than any Minister. My hon. Friend should also recognise that if he is willing to compensate the families and institute the independent inquiry into whooping-cough vaccine, Back Benchers of this House will be the first to thank him and express their warm appreciation.

2.22 a.m.

Mrs. Jill Knight: I want to make three brief points. There is no doubt that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) is quite correct in what he says about the problem that has arisen over the Department of Health's figures. The figures are in question, and there appears

to be a dispute between the Department on the one hand and the Committee on the Safety of Medicines and the joint committee on the other.
I also read The Sunday Times article to which reference has been made, and I shall quote from it very briefly:
Other experts are now questioning the Department's vaccination policy on the grounds that the benefits no longer outweigh the risks of the vaccination itself.
In the light of that, should parents still be advised to continue with whooping cough vaccinations for their children?
Secondly, I am gravely worried about the way in which publication may have spread a real reluctance in the minds of parents to have their children vaccinated at all. It is extremely important to state loudly and frequently that every other vaccine is safe and that children should be vaccinated for their own safety against other diseases that exist and threaten children.
Thirdly, the Minister will have seen the reports about the recent outbreak of polio and the scare in the Wigan area. There were long queues for vaccination yesterday and on Saturday. But vaccinations were available only between 9.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m., although special supplies of the vaccine were rushed to the area to deal with the situation. Children who were still waiting with their parents in the queue at 4.30 p.m. were refused vaccination, because no more were undertaken after that hour. I hope that the Minister will look again at these points and do what he can to avoid a recurrence of what is happening at Wigan.

2.24 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I know how deeply concerned many Members on both sides of the House arc about the matter that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) has raised in the House tonight. I should like to assure him that I feel no less deeply about this problem than he does. My right hon. Friend has expressed his deep sympathy with the small minority of children who are the unfortunate victims of vaccine damage, and with the wish of their parents for compensation, and on 8th February he made a statement that will be familiar to the House. The matter was the subject of an Adjournment debate on 17th


February. My right hon. Friend dealt with the matter on the Adjournment, and I must tell my hon. Friend that it is very rare for a Cabinet Minister to deal with a subject on the Adjournment. Indeed, in my seven years membership of the House I cannot recall another example, although I might have missed one.
I think it regrettable that in this very important discussion that is going on in the House and outside my hon. Friend has chosen to make this a personal matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. At the end of that debate my hon. Friend expressed his dissatisfaction with my right hon. Friend's reply. He had himself made an impassioned attack on the continued use of whooping-cough vaccine, and was disappointed in my right hon. Friend's continued stand, on behalf of the Government, that the question of compensation for vaccine-damaged children must await the report of the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation.
As my right hon. Friend explained, the case for these children cannot be considered in isolation. There is a larger group of children who are similarly damaged by the diseases against which vaccination is offered, and there are many other categories of handicapped children for whom a case can also be made. Is it seriously suggested that we should create one privileged group of handicapped at the expense of all the others? What will the parents of the unprivileged children think of that? As my right hon. Friend explained, all need to be considered together before conclusions can be reached. That is why we feel that there is no sensible alternative to awaiting the report of the Royal Commission. That must remain the position.
As hon. Members will be aware, the Government are advised on immunisation by the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. The joint committee continually reviews the uses of existing vaccines and considers the introduction of new vaccines. At the present time, it recommends routine vaccination against diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, poliomyelitis, measles, tuberculosis and rubella. The success of the immunisation campaign can be measured by the virtual eradication of such diseases as diphtheria and poliomyelitis. Whooping cough vaccine is also

very effective, and studies have shown that it has a protection rate of 70 per cent. to 80 per cent.—much the same as polio vaccination. But the committee is not wedded to any particular vaccine; it has no axe to grind. Its decisions are based on the balance of medical advantage. For example, smallpox vaccination was dropped when its dangers exceeded its benefits. I believe that the House as a whole shares my right hon. Friend's confidence in the members of the joint committee. There is no dispute between my right hon. Friend and the joint committee.
I hope, too, that hon. Members will share my right hon. Friend's concern and that of the medical profession at the alarming drop of 25 per cent. to 30 per cent. in the number of vaccinations for diptheria, tetanus and poliomyelitis over the last three years and the even steeper fall of nearly 60 per cent. in whooping-cough vaccinations. If the result of current publicity is to continue to lower the uptake of vaccinations in this way, there could be a serious increase in the diseases that they are designed to prevent. That way disaster lies, and we must do all we can to stop it happening.
Unfortunately, as honourable Members are well aware, no immunising procedure is entirely free from risk. Adverse reactions are, however, exceedingly uncommon. Some of these risks can be avoided by recognising contra-indications and exercising care in administering vaccines. Precise estimates of the degree of risk are difficult to make.

Mr. Ashley: I have no quarrel with my hon. Friend. My quarrel is with the Secretary of State. However, on the question of damaging the immunisation programme, would my hon. Friend care to reply to the points that I have made? I have contended that the Secretary of State has damaged the programme, because people are anxious about whooping-cough vaccine and are worried about the conflicting expert advice. Therefore, we need a public inquiry.
People are worried about the lack of compensation, so we need compensation. Unless and until the Secretary of State does something on these matters, people will worry about the immunisation programme generally.
I have now put forward a comprehensive programme for improving the programme, involving consultations between Departments. I appreciate my hon. Friend's problems, but could he not depart from his brief for a moment and comment on these points?

Mr. Deakins: I shall be coming, case by case, to the points made by my hon. Friend on the general principles. At the moment, I am trying to illustrate the areas of risk.
It is often very difficult to determine whether a disability has been caused by an immunising procedure, and this means that it is impossible to say with certainty what the precise risk is. Illnesses and disabilities reported as adverse reactions may often have another explanation. For whooping-cough, the figure of one case of brain damage—or, to use the technical terms, "encephalopathy" or "encephalitis"—in 300,000 children vaccinated, has been quoted. As my right hon. Friend has explained, this was never intended as a precise estimate. It was produced to counter unsubstantiated claims that the risk was as high as one in 5,000 or one in 10,000. It was designed to show the order of magnitude of the risk involved. As for the nature of the "brain damage" referred to, this may be either permanent or temporary. My right hon. Friend is advised by the joint committee that, in any case, the risk is a good deal lower than that from the disease.
The joint committee consists of independent experts. There can be no case for an independent inquiry into independent experts. The experts may disagree, but my right hon. Friend has to be guided by the official advisory committee set up to advise Ministers impartially on these matters.
My hon. Friend has repeated his previous criticisms and has mentioned the evidence provided by Professor Stewart of Glasgow University. I understand that the joint committee's Sub-Committee on Complications considered further information from Professor Stewart last week and asked him to provide more details, so that the conclusions that he has drawn may be evaluated. This is an important step, because I agree that the experts

should get together and reach some sort of joint conclusion on the basis of the statistics.
As my right hon. Friend said, a continuing study in the North-West Thames Region has shown that out of 80,000 vaccinations containing a whooping-cough component there has not been a single case of brain damage, and I should like to add to what he said in the light of further reports in medical journals which are of great interest in this connection.
A letter in the British Medical Journal of 26th February this year, from Dr. N. R. Grist, a member of the joint committee, reports that a survey of encephalitis among patients discharged from hospital in Scotland in the two-year period 1968–9 revealed not one case of brain damage due to whooping-cough vaccination. No such cases have been encountered in the Glasgow area by the two senior infectious diseases physicians with a combined experience of 60 years. A further letter in the Lancet of 19th February 1977, from Dr. T. S. Wilson, another member of the joint committee, reports that during the period 1961–75 about 180,000 children in Glasgow received immunisation against whooping-cough and no case of severe brain damage directly attributable to whooping-cough vaccine is known to the agencies concerned with assessment. The evidence of these various surveys is backed up by a survey in Denmark reported in The Times of 23rd February this year, which brings out the very point that the joint committee has stressed—that convulsions resulting in brain damage occur naturally at the ages at which vaccination is offered, and which concludes that any casual connection between whooping-cough immunisation and such convulsions seem very unlikely.
It is essential that there should be the most careful regard to contra-indications to vaccination. Much advice has been issued in the past, especially in the booklet "Immunisation against Infectious Disease", reprinted in 1972. This booklet is now in course of revision, and to make sure that the latest information is available to doctors and nurses involved in vaccination a detailed schedule of contra-indications is being prepared for circulation later this month. Similarly, to make sure that the public are aware of the benefits and risks of vaccination, we wish to help doctors and nurses in their


task of providing information and discussing issues with parents. We have asked the Health Education Council to provide a new and detailed leaflet for them to give to parents.
We are advised by another group of experts, mentioned by my hon. Friend, the Committee on Safety of Medicines, in relation to the safety, quality and efficacy of vaccines, as of other medicinal products. In addition, the Committee on Review of Medicines is undertaking a systematic examination of immunological products, including whooping-cough vaccine. Information about adverse reactions, which my hon. Friend has criticised, relies mainly on a system whereby all doctors, dentists and manufacturers have been asked to report any cases where use of a product may have harmed a patient. Comprehensive reporting cannot be expected under any system that requires the voluntary co-operation of so many people. But we are satisfied that valuable information is being obtained. About 150 reports of suspected adverse reactions to vaccines of all types are received each year.
The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation also has the benefit of studies of adverse reactions carried out by the Public Health Laboratory Service, the Medical Research Council, and other bodies. To supplement our knowledge of vaccine damage, research studies are in progress. The main study is being carried out under the aegis of the Middlesex Hospital, with the co-operation of the British Paediatric Association and is looking at all children aged 2 months to 3 years with serious neurological illness. Its aim will be to establish the incidence of vaccine damage.
The question of compensation is a difficult one. While any vaccination programme is carried out for the common benefit of society, its primary purpose is to protect individuals, and the fact that there is a risk involved makes it no different from many other medical procedures. Clearly, the implications of compensation for the ill-effects of vaccination, where there is no question of negligence, are very wide. As I have said, it raises the question whether we should similarly compensate those who are damaged by infectious diseases.

Mr. Ashley: This is a myth. It is basic to the whole argument. Children are at risk from whooping-cough up to the age of 1, especially at six months. That is when they are most at risk. The triple whooping-cough injection is not now given until children are 1 year old, and they are vaccinated to protect younger children, not themselves. When children are vaccinated they are past the time when they are at the greatest risk. They are vaccinated for the social good, for the protection of younger children, not to protect themselves. I do not see how my hon. Friend can dispute this fact.

Mr. Deakins: I am not disputing that the immunisation programme is for the benefit of society, but it is possible for children over 1 to get whooping-cough. I know this, because when I was a child my brother had whooping-cough at the age of 5. I did not catch it, although I was slightly older.

Mr. Ashley: Any brain damage?

Mr. Deakins: I accept my hon. Friend's implied criticism. The issue of compensation raises the question whether we should similarly compensate those who are damaged by infectious diseases. Moreover, it is by no means easy to decide whether disability is due to a particular procedure, or what the right level of compensation for different disabilities should be. That is why the claims of vaccine-damaged children cannot be considered in isolation, and why it would be wrong to pre-empt the Royal Commission's Report.
Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend knows, we are doing all we can under the present law to ease the heavy burdens of families in the rare cases where serious ill effects result. A wide range of services and benefits is freely available under the National Health Service, the personal social services, the social security system and the Family Fund, which was extended in 1974 to help all types of families in which there is a severely handicapped child.
I hope that what I have said tonight will reassure parents—this is very important—about both the safety and the efficacy of whooping cough vaccine. I would urge them to see their own doctor or the clinic doctor to discuss the question


of vaccination for their child if they have not already done so.
In conclusion, I echo my right hon. Friend's remarks, quoting Sir Charles Stuart-Harris, the Chairman of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. There is, as I know my hon. Friend recognises, a real danger of a rise in the incidence of whooping cough and of other infectious diseases if the current seriously reduced rates of acceptance of vaccination are not increased. Parents must face up to the dangers that must result if their children are not vaccinated against whooping cough, diphtheria, tetanus and polio. All these diseases remain a real threat to health, and certainly far greater than the risks of vaccination.

Orders of the Day — HOSPITALS (EMERGENCY BEDS)

2.47 a.m.

Mr. Terence Higgins: It has been the practice of the House over many centuries to provide that the Crown, as represented by the Government and Ministers, shall not have the supply of funds to carry out their responsibilities until grievances have been redressed, or at least until grievances have been brought to the attention of the Ministers concerned. It is true also that it is traditional for such debates to go on during the night.
Although I have risen to my feet at just after a quarter to 3 in the morning, it is not altogether inappropriate that I should do so at this hour, because my particular concern is with the provision of hospital beds for emergency cases. There may well be people awake at this hour who are deeply concerned about either their own welfare or that of relatives or friends and who are wondering whether it will be possible at such an hour of night—or, indeed, at any time of the day or night—to secure admission to hospital when that is desperately needed.
I shall concentrate on the question of emergency cases rather than on the other equally important but different problem of the provision of hospital services in general. I shall relate my remarks to Class XI, Vote 1 of the Supplementary Estimate, which is particularly concerned with the health and personal social services in England. The sums of money

involved here are vast. The original Estimate was for about £4,078 million, and we have a further Supplementary Estimate, which brings the total to £4,496,547,000.
Is this vast sum of money being expended in such a way that even that most fundamental medical service, emergency treatment in hospital, is being provided adequately? I do not believe that it is being provided adequately, and in particular that it is being so provided in my constituency.
My remarks arise in particular from a report by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner for England, on a constituency case that I had brought to his attention. One of my constituents, an elderly lady, became seriously ill and, in the opinion of her doctor, was in desperate need of hospital treatment. She was, however, unable to obtain admission to hospital, and as a result she was admitted to a private nursing home. Subsequently, she and her son asked for compensation for the cost of admission to the nursing home, which had arisen because the National Health Service had not, in the urgent circumstances I have described, provided a bed for her.
This raises questions at three levels. The first is the question of compensation for an individual case; the second is the question whether the National Health Service has a duty to provide a bed for an emergency case; the third is the whole question of the provision of hospital services in the Worthing area. It will be convenient to take the second point first—that is to say, the general question whether the NHS has a duty to provide beds in emergency cases. I am glad that the Under-Secretary of State is here to reply, since he and I have often debated trade matters in days gone by. This subject is a change for both of us.
In his detailed report, after recounting the history of the affair, the Ombudsman stated in clear and categorical terms that
…in my opinion a health authority has a duty to provide accommodation when a patient from one of their districts needs admission to hospital immediately as an emergency.
That, I think, is certainly the general public's understanding of the position. People believe that that is what they have paid their national insurance contributions and taxes for over the years.
I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State asking whether he accepted such a duty. His reply was not as precise as I would have wished. On 22nd February, he replied that
The decision whether to admit a patient to a National Health Service hospital rests with the hospital doctor to whom the patient has been referred and is a matter for his clinical judgment. A decision by a hospital doctor below the grade of consultant not to admit a patient to hospital may be referred to the responsible consultant who would decide the matter. I would expect a health authority to provide accommodation for the admission to hospital of a patient who a responsible hospital doctor considered should be admitted immediately as an emergency."—[Official Report, 22nd February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 324.]
He says that he "expects" it. He went on to say that he was writing to me about the case, and he has been kind enough to do so. But here again, in his letter his terminology leaves the matter a little unclear, so I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will now make an absolutely clear statement accepting that the NHS has a duty to provide accommodation for a patient if it is needed as an emergnecy. It is the word "duty" that is crucial. It is quite different from simply saying that one "expects" that a bed will be provided. People are concerned not with whether they may expect it but with whether they get it, and whether the Department accepts that it has such a responsibility.
Having said that, I want to make it clear that I realise that the expression "an emergency" may require interpretation. Indeed, whether a particular case is an emergency may be a matter of clinical judgment. As the Secretary of State has pointed out, particular procedures may be necessary to establish whether this was so. But what I want to establish is whether the Department accepts that the NHS—there is no partisan point here, it would apply under a Government of any colour—does have such a duty.
In his letter the Secretary of State says:
Sometimes, whether a case can be treated as an 'emergency' is a matter of degree: immediate or early hospital admission may be desirable but not essential and whether a particular patient is admitted as an emergency will depend on the need to use available hospital beds for more urgent cases.
In this particular instance it was quite clearly the view of the Parliamentary Commissioner, and certainly of the

patient's own general practitioner, that it was necessary that the lady should be admitted in order to preserve her life. Happily, as a result of going into the private nursing home, her life was saved and I am happy to say that she has recovered.
That brings me to the question of compensation in this individual case. I have pursued this matter by way of parliamentary Question. I asked the Minister concerned
if he will give directions so that when the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England recommend that an individual should be made an ex gratia payment following an investigation into a specific failure of the National Health Service, such a payment shall be made".—[Official Report, 21st February, 1977; Vol. 926, c. 427–8.]
I do not want to overstate my case. I well understand that it would be extremely difficult for the Government to accept, in every instance where a claim for compensation was made, that such a payment should be made out of public funds. I am not suggesting that it should be automatic, but judging from the reply that I received to my Question that seems to be what the Department is suggesting.
I would have thought there is a clear difference between an automatic form of compensation and one where the Parliamentary Commissioner, after extensive and detailed investigation, comes to the conclusion that compensation should be paid.
That is what he did in this case. I have been pursuing the matter, and the Secretary of State referred it to the area health authority. It has gone into the matter in considerable depth. Indeed, the Chairman of the West Sussex Area Health Authority wrote to my constituent's son commenting on the Commissioner's report. The Commissioner suggested that the area health authority should look at the matter again. The chairman's letter says:
However, whilst it is agreed the Report is in general fairly presented, this Authority cannot agree with the Commissioner's opinion that…a health authority has a duty to provide accommodation when a patient from one of their districts needs admission to hospital immediately as an emergency'. It is regrettable fact that it is quite impracticable always to guarantee admission to hospital even in cases of emergency—although this is our wish and endeavour. Consequently we cannot accept liability for alternative arrangements made.


I have already covered the first point—the question whether there is such a duty. Certainly the Parliamentary Commissioner takes that view, and I take that view. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is also his view.
One also has to take account of the fact that the area health authority has to weigh up the pros and cons. I fully accept that it has looked into the matter carefully and has done so again following the views expressed by the Parliamentary Commissioner, but I put it to the Minister that it is not very appropriate that the responsibility in this sort of case, where a full investigation has been carried out by the Parliamentary Commissioner, should fall upon the area health authority.
If, as would seem to be the case, the National Health Service is failing in a number of instances to provide beds in emergencies, the claims for compensation that would be justified by reports from the Parliamentary Commissioner would tend to fall on those areas where the facilities were less good and, consequently, where the financial strains were greatest. That would not seem to be a very satisfactory arrangement.
That is why, in tabling the Question to which I referred, I suggested that the Secretary of State should give a direction to the area health authority to pay compensation not automatically but where a full investigation had been carried out by the Parliamentary Commissioner into the case.
I am sure that the Minister will understand why I think it is more appropriate that it should come from central funds such as those covered by the Supplementary Estimate that we are considering. Therefore, I hope that he will feel it right, in cases such as this and in this case especially, that such a direction should be given.
The Secretary of State is perhaps being a little naive in saying that this would override the responsibilities of the area health authority. In a case where a full investigation has been made, it is more appropriately dealt with by the Secretary of State and paid out of central funds than put as an added burden on the funds of the area health authority concerned.
I turn to my third main point—the actual provision of hospital services in the Worthing area. One of the disquieting features resulting from the publicity that this case has received is the number of representations that I have had about the inadequacy of the hospital services in Worthing. I should mention that in the Parliamentary Commissioner's report he distinguishes this case from other cases that the area health authority said were similar. He believed that there was a case that could be distinguished as one not justifying compensation, whereas the area health authority's argument that there were other similar cases, that it would open the floodgates to claims for compensation, and so on, was not a view that the Parliamentary Commissioner accepted.
There will be no dispute among people in the Worthing area about the desperate need for increased hospital facilities in the area, and I believe that that is a matter of great urgency.
Some years ago, soon after I first became Member of Parliament for Worthing, I introduced to the Minister's predecessor in the previous Labour Government a deputation led by the Mayor of Worthing and others, as a result of which Worthing Hospital was planned to expand. A degree of expansion has taken place, but the next stage has been, I believe, unduly delayed and, as a result, the situation is very serious. Again, I make no party point.
There are also problems about the allocation of resources between Worthing Hospital and Southlands Hospital, both of which serve the area. It is an area that has real transport problems, because Southlands Hospital is very much on the extreme edge of the area and, therefore, presents very real problems in transporting emergency cases and in visiting the hospital.
At all events, these are decisions that have resulted in physical installations being made, and, obviously, in these circumstances the right course is to make the best use of them. Therefore, I do not comment in detail on the allocation of resources between the two hospitals on this occasion, though I shall seek to do so at some time in the future. But it is vitally important to expand Worthing Hospital itself.
I think that that point will be supported by those who live in the area. Of course, my constituency has one of the highest average ages in the country, and this presents very real problems in terms of geriatric facilities. But it is also extremely important that an adequate provision of acute beds should be made, so that the elderly who can be treated and discharged from hospital should have adequate facilities, particularly in the kind of case I have outlined.
The extent to which the existing availability of beds is not being taken up is also very worrying. On 21st February I asked the Secretary of State the maximum number of beds in Worthing that were not being used in 1974, 1975 and 1976 because of staff shortage. I also asked whether he expected that sufficient staff would become available. He replied:
I understand that no beds were closed because of staff shortages prior to the commissioning of a new ward block early in 1975. By the end of 1975 175, and by the end of 1976 72 of the net additional 248 beds remained unopened because of difficulties in recruiting staff. Fifty of the unopened beds are for geriatric patients to whose needs the district management team is giving urgent consideration."—[Official Report, 21st February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 450.]
Although the hosptal was expanded, a considerable number of beds were not brought into operation. One of those beds might have been used by my constituent whose case the Parliamentary Commissioner was investigating.
It is therefore a question of a desperate need for additional investment and rapid progres on the expansion of the hospital, coupled with the need to ensure that adequate staff are available to man the beds that are provided. Taking the picture as a whole, there is very grave cause for concern about the hospital situation in Worthing. I hope that we shall have an assurance from the Minister that urgent steps will be taken to proceed with the next stage of the expansion of the hospital.
One of the things that has given me gravest cause for concern has been the number of representations that I have received in addition to those that I was already receiving from GPs in the area and from various other interested groups. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can tell me in quite clear terms that the Government accept the duty of providing

beds for emergency cases, subject, of course, to the qualifications of definition and procedure that I have mentioned. Secondly, is he prepared to give a direction of the kind that I have suggested? Thirdly, will be give considerable priority to the needs of an area which has a high percentage of elderly people, and where, clearly, the need for additional beds and the staff to man them is becoming a matter of desperate concern? That concern is reflected so much in the individual case that I have brought to his attention this evening.

3.8 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins). I am grateful to the hon. Member for the spirit in which he has made his remarks tonight. He has raised a very important topic about the provision of health services and, as he has made clear, he has been pursuing vigorously a grievance in this area on behalf of one of his constituents with the local health authority and with my Department. The subject he has raised presents many difficulties.
First, I should like to clarify the responsibilities of the NHS in relation to this matter as laid down in the relevant statutes. This is not because Ministers and the Department are disposed to take a narrow legalistic approach to the points that the hon. Member has raised. This is not at all the position, as I hope to show. But it is necessary to be clear from the out-set what the statutory position is.
The main points are, first, that the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973 provides in Section 2(2):
It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to provide…to such extent as he considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements…
hospital accommodation, medical and nursing services, and certain other facilities and services.
Secondly, under regulations, the function of providing hospital services on behalf of the Secretary of State has been made exercisable by regional health authorities and, through them, by area health authorities.
Thus, the NHS does not have a statutory duty to meet all demands made upon it—either in general or in any particular circumstances, such as emergencies, however, these may be defined. The key word in the statute that I have quoted are "all reasonable demands", and it is this phrase that necessarily guides the Secretary of State, and health authorities acting on his behalf, in deciding to what extent services should be provided.
In practice, of course, the level of services provided is on the one hand determined by the assessed needs in particular areas and, on the other, limited by the resources available to the NHS. In the case of hospital services, the major factor determining admission of in-patients is medical priority, although other factors, such as personal and social circumstances and the efficient organisation of services, may also influence individual admissions. Where it is clear to a responsible hospital doctor that immediate admission to hospital is essential for medical reasons, this would be an overriding priority. Such cases have the first claim on NHS hospital services.
Whilst the formal duty to provide hospital services—and, therefore, the formal power to admit or refuse to admit a patient to the hospital—falls to the health authorities, in practice the decision whether to admit a patient rests with a responsible hospital doctor. This is because whether a patient needs medical treatment in hospital, and the medical priority that should be given to his admission, is normally a matter of clinical judgment. This judgment must be exercised by a doctor accountable to the health authority, since in this respect he is discharging a duty laid on the health authority.
It was these considerations that led my right hon. Friend to say, in answering a recent parliamentary question by the hon. Member, that he
would expect a health authority to provide accommodation for the admission to hospital of a patient who a responsible hospital doctor considered should be admitted immediately as an emergency."—[Official Report, 22nd February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 524.]
With this proviso, that a responsible hospital doctor must decide whether immediate admission is essential, my right

hon. Friend accepts the Commissioner's view that a health authority has a duty—a public duty, not a legal duty—to provide accommodation for a patient who needs immediate admission as an emergency.
The "responsible hospital doctor" would ultimately be the hospital consultant concerned. Of course, in emergencies the senior hospital doctor on the spot may be a registrar or a more junior doctor. There may sometimes be disagreement between the general practitioner concerned and a hospital doctor below the grade of consultant, on whether a patient should be admitted immediately as an emergency. If so, and if the general practitioner is not prepared to accept a refusal to admit immediately, he has the right—indeed the duty—to refer the matter to a responsible consultant. The final decision would normally rest with the consultant. If he decided that immediate admission was essential, a bed would have to be found somewhere, if necessary in another hospital.
The well-understood practice in the NHS is that patients are referred to consultants for specialist treatment by general practitioners. A general practitioner may decide not to appeal to a consultant against an initial refusal by a less senior hospital doctor to admit a patient immediately—for example, if the general practitioner accepted that a hospital bed was not available for a patient where it was desirable but not essential that there should be immediate admission. The onus of deciding whether a consultant should be brought in over disputed cases must rest with the general practitioner who refers the case.
Decisions about whether immediate admission is essential are not always clear-cut. The more straightforward situations include those where a patient is suffering from a condition that could not reasonably be expected to be treated successfully without the equipment and skill that are normally available only in the hospital setting—for example, severe haemorrhage, some acute surgical emergencies such as intestinal obstruction or a perforated bowel, certain kinds of trauma. and conditions that require the aid of a respirator for a temporary period, often in an intensive therapy unit. For such patients a bed would normally be found somewhere, and they are admitted as quickly as possible.
There are, however, other patients referred to hospital who would benefit from admission but who a doctor might reasonably expect to treat successfully elsewhere. When such patients are referred to hospitals under pressure, the benefits they may expect from admission have to be carefully weighed against the needs of other patients, and the hospital doctor has often rapidly to take difficult priority decisions. In assessing priority in such cases, not only the medical condition and its severity but the surrounding social and other circumstances of the patient have to be taken into account. For example, home conditions or the family situation may be important factors in deciding whether it is essential that a patient should be admitted immediately into hospital. It is in such cases that disagreements about admissions sometimes arise.
The Department has not attempted to give central guidance on the emergency admission of patients to hospital. It would not be practical or desirable to do so, since there would be so many exceptions in differing circumstances to any general advice that central guidance could well do more harm than good. Where acute medical emergencies are concerned, the only practical way of proceeding is by hospital doctors weighing all relevant factors and exercising their clinical judgment in individual cases. This inevitably places a heavy burden on hospital doctors who sometimes have very difficult decisions to take.
The difficulties that can arise are well illustrated by the case that arose in the hon. Member's constituency and to which he has drawn attention in raising this topic.

Mr. Higgins: I was trying to pick a point in the hon. Gentleman's remarks where I could reasonably make the point that I wish to make. I understand both the points on definition about which there are difficulties and on the procedure for reference to a consultant. I am glad to see from the Secretary of State's letter that the chairman of the local medical committee has written to all general practitioners in my area describing the steps that might appropriately be taken in these circumstances.
Perhaps I may try to pin the Minister down on this particular matter. The

hon. Gentleman quoted from the 1973 Act and said that there was a duty
to provide…to such extent as he"—
the Secretary of State—
considers necessary to meet all reasonable requirements".
Does the Minister agree that if the procedure outlined is used and the relevant consultant says that a particular patient is such an emergency case that he should be admitted, the National Health Service, working through the area health authority, has a duty to provide a bed? If so, and if it failed to provide a bed, it would not be providing facilities to the extent that was
necessary to meet all reasonable requirements.
Therefore, does the authority not have a legal as well as a social duty to provide such a bed and to provide compensation if it fails to do so?

Mr. Deakins: The authority has a public duty to provide a bed. But, as I tried to make clear earlier, there is a distinction between a public and a legal duty. The hon. Gentleman was very fair on this point. We are discussing not clear-cut categories but the interpretation of what constitutes an emergency.
If, in the case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, a senior consultant had said "A place must be found for this patient", obviously the health authority would have had a duty to provide a hospital bed. But it does not have to be in a particular hospital. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it may not be the hospital to which the consultant would prefer the patient to be taken.
If the hon. Gentleman will read my remarks—I was careful about this point; it is on the second page of my brief—he will see that I sought to distinguish between a public and a legal duty. I hope that I have met the point that he was seeking to establish.
As far as I am aware, there is no legal duty to provide compensation. There is, of course, a natural public duty to consider all the circumstances of a case. However, I should like to take up the point about compensation later in my remarks. I do not want to anticipate what I propose to say later.
We have not attempted to give central guidance on the emergency admission of


patients to hospital. I was about to refer to the particular case which led the hon. Gentleman to raise this matter. In that case a general practitioner failed to persuade the registrars at two hospitals to admit as an emergency an elderly patient who had contracted acute bronchial pneumonia. In the face of this refusal, and because of the urgency, the general practitioner arranged admission to a private nursing home at the patient's own expense. When, later, the matter was referred to the Health Service Commissioner, the consultant concerned told the Commissioner's officer that had a consultant been brought in a National Health Service bed would probably have been found somewhere.
The Health Service Commissioner found in this case that there had been a failure of service by the area health authority. Having regard to the evidence presented to the Commissioner about the patient's medical condition, and the statement by the consultant concerned—that a bed would have been found had a consultant been brought in—my right hon. Friend accepts the Commissioner's findings that there has been a failure of service.
I must add, however, that the admissions procedure does not seem to have been fully explored in this case. I know that it is easy to say that with hindsight—and there is no doubt that the general practitioner involved did what he thought was in the best interests of his patient in very difficult and urgent circumstances. The health district concerned is one in which there is a high proportion of elderly people in the population and a shortage of hospital beds, mainly because of staffing difficulties, so it is not possible to accommodate in hospitals in the district all elderly patients who may possibly benefit from hospital care but whose condition does not render hospital admission absolutely essential. This means that general practitioners cannot always secure the admission to hospital of patients for whom they feel that immediate admission is desirable.
All that helps to explain the unfortunate outcome in this case, where a patient who was an acute medical emergency did not gain admission to a National Health Service hospital, but it shows how important it is in such circumstances to

bring in the consultant in all disputed cases about emergency admission to hospital.
I now come to the point of the intervention by the hon. Member for Worthing.

Mr. Higgins: The Minister said that the general practitioner failed to convince them that it was necessary. That is an unfortunate phrase. It would be fairer if he had said that the GP was "unable to do so", because the GP in this case did all that was possible in the circumstances for his patient.

Mr. Deakins: I do not think that I said that there was any failure on the part of the GP. I was very careful to avoid that expression, because I understand the difficult circumstances in which he had to operate.
The question of making an ex gratin payment is for the health authority. The Health Service Commissioner has asked the health authority to give further consideration to making an ex gratia payment. Such a recommendation from the Health Service Commissioner—as with the Commissioner's findings and recommendations generally should be considered very carefully and seriously by the health authority.
Since the health authority has reached its conclusion not to make an ex gratia payment only after due considertion of the relevant circumstances, the Secretary of State does not feel that it would be appropriate for him to intervene.
I understand that the gentleman concerned may take the matter up once more with the Commissioner under the provisions of the legislation. The matter might, therefore, be referred to again.
Important as the case raised by the hon. Member is, it should not be seen out of perspective. There are about 5 million hospital admissions each year, including about 2½ emergency admissions—that is, emergencies account for about one half of all admissions. Many of these emergencies present difficult decisions for hospital doctors, but the unfortunate outcome in the particular case raised by the hon. Member is comparitively rare. The position varies, of course, from place to place, and districts with exceptional pressure on available hospital beds may have a higher than


usual proportion of emergency admissions, and consequently a higher than average proportion of difficult decisions to make. But in all areas it should be possible to find a bed somewhere for a patient who would be accepted by a National Health Service consultant as an acute medical emergency.
I turn finally to the hospital services in Worthing and the decision on the hospital. I should like to consider what the hon. Member for Worthing has said and write to him, as it would be inappropriate for me to give an off-the-cuff answer at nearly 3.30 a.m. I know of the problems in areas such as Worthing—there are one or two other similar areas, but Worthing is exceptional because of its high proportion of elderly people. The regional health authority is well aware of the situation. It is perhaps a case of seeing what resources, within a limited total, can be made available.

Orders of the Day — PROFESSIONAL AND EXECUTIVE RECRUITMENT

3.25 a.m.

Mr. Robert Taylor: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise in this debate the question of the added expenditure, which we are expected to approve tonight under Class IV, Vote 15 and, in particular, that amount of money which comes under Subhead B and is to be voted to the Professional and Executive Recruitment Service. It amounts to only £730,000 but it also amounts to an increase of 14 per cent. over the original gross budget for this service, which amounted to £5,182,000, and it is over one-third of the net budgeted figure for this service, which I calculate by taking the figure of £5,182,000 and subtracting the anticipated fee income that the service is expected to obtain.
The subject of the Professional and Executive Recruitment Service has been closely scrutinised on a number of occasions by the Public Accounts Committee, of which I am a member. It was also the subject of criticism by a number of hon. Members when we debated the report of the Public Accounts Committee on 9th December last. I make no apology for returning to the subject this morning and declaring once again that I believe that this service should be disbanded,

particularly when the Government are looking for economies in public expenditure, and that the placing of executive and professional people should be left to the established and experienced firms in the private sector.
If one examines the accounts that are before us, the first figure that strikes one under this subhead is that the fee income shows a substantial shortfall over the estimate. The fee income amounts to £2,940,000, and the estimated figure was £3,405,000. There is a shortfall of £465,000. That shortfall of income coming into the public funds is additional to the £730,000 that we are expected to vote tonight.
Again, if we examine these accounts from a different angle and compare them with last year's report of the Manpower Services Commission, which has a separate sub-account showing the detailed income and expenditure account of the Professional and Executive Recruitment Service, we see that the figures are more than disturbing. Although it is admitted that the fee income for the current year is up substantially, from £1·7 million to £2·9 million, the salaries and general expenses of this small service have increased from £2·7 million to £5·9 million. That is a very substantial increase.
While I know that the service is intending to expand in various parts of the country, I feel that the increase in the fee income should have been much more substantial for this expansion to be justified.
What it means is that apart from grants that the service is to obtain from other Government Departments, I calculate that the net loss has risen from £1,024,000 last year to £2,140,000 in the current year. I suggest that for this service, which has been established since 1973 and which was expected to be a profitable service, that deficit is unacceptable.
On 16th June, in the Public Accounts Committee, Mr. O'Brien, the head of the Manpower Services Commission, expressed the hope that the Professional and Executive Recruitment Service would break even by 1978—in other words, in the coming financial year. It would appear now that that hope is very unlikely to be realised. I asked Mr.


O'Brien how the loses would be funded if they continued at the present rate, and he replied:
We shall have to reconsider the future of the service.
That was an admission that the future of the service is not sacrosanct, and that it could be re-examined. I hope that the Minister will announce such a re-examination in the light of that statement.
There is not a shred of evidence that any vacancies filled by the service would have remained empty had the service not existed. There is no evidence at all to suggest that different applicants would have filled the vacancies had the service not existed. It is very likely that if the right men have been placed in the right jobs by the service that would have occurred anyway had the matter been left to the private sector. Also, had it been left to the private sector the current year's losses of more than £2 million could have been made available for much more worthwhile projects in some other field where money is needed desperately. No one would have had less chance of being placed in a job if the placing had been left to the private sector.
I do not know whether the service is subject to a cash limit—I assume that it is—but it would seem that the cash limit has been broken, because it is unlikely that it would be more than last year's losses when the service is supposed to be breaking even. Does the Minister accept the statement of the Chairman of the Manpower Services Commission that the service should be carefully reviewed to see whether it should be continued? Will he say whether the service is subject to a cash limit, and whether this limit has been exceeded?

3.34 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): With the permission of the House, I shall reply to the debate—and I am disappointed that no one has objected. This is an important subject, and I thank the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Taylor) for raising it. I am sorry that more hon. Members have not taken part in the debate.
Certainly, although nothing in politics or in social policy is sacrosanct, I do not think that any examination of the profes-

sional and executive recruitment service would be undertaken with the view of discontinuing the service. It provides a service for many people that would not be provided by the private sector. Many people go to PER for assistance when private firms just would not bother with them. That is very important.
The hon. Member talked as though PER was an entirely new service. In fact, the public employment service, under the old Ministry of Labour, and later under the Department of Employment, has included a separate service for the recruitment of professional executive and technical staffs since the end of the war. I think it was Ernest Bevin who decided to create such a service.
It is wrong to imagine that PER is an entirely new venture that has existed for only the last two or three years, since the modernisation of the employment service. PER has the benefit of many years experience in the public sector, and we believe that this experience has been put to good use in modernising and developing the old service and equipping itself to operate more effectively in the highly specialised competitive business of management recruitment.
When I visited the PER offices in Manchester on Friday morning, I was pleased to find the organisation most impressive. I was pleased, also, to learn that the shrieks from private placing agencies are becoming louder. The greater the resistance to the existence of this organisation by private agencies, the greater must be its success.

Mr. Robert Taylor: Is it not obvious that the shrieks from the private sector are probably because this agency is not funding itself but is being totally subsidised by the taxpayer, and that in many cases the private agencies that are successful and profitable find that the taxes they pay are used to subsidise this loss-making service?

Mr. Golding: I think that the shrieks get louder the nearer to profitability the service becomes.

Mr. Robert Taylor: Further away.

Mr. Golding: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I shall come to the figures to show that that is not the case
It was in 1973 that the service underwent a radical reorganisation, with two main objectives in mind—first, to get a larger share of the work, to take work from the private agencies, and, secondly, to reduce the cost to public funds. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would support that.
The number of vacancies notified by employers to the old service—and I emphasise "the old service"—did not keep pace with the rapidly increasing volume of applicants, and too often the old service was looked upon primarily as a job-finding agency for unemployed managers rather than, in addition, an agency to provide a recruitment service for employers. The only way for the service to become more effective was to put it on to a commercial fee-charging basis, to equip it with modern computer techniques, to speed up the selection process, and to reorganise its internal management and staff structure.
All that was clearly going to cost more money, but the old service was already costing 10 times more for placing than the general employment service, and the increase in cost could be met only by charging employers. With large numbers of employers using the service and with the prospect of more vacancies being achieved, the aim of the new service was to be financially self-sufficient within three years. In spite of the world recession, which has led to such high unemployment, PER has finally established itself in a competitive field and is currently earning more than £2 million a year in fees.
Recruitment services provided for employers have been developed in a number of ways. A recruitment advertising service has been introduced and an interview service has been developed which produces a final short list of applicants selected as suitable for a vacancy. A special unit has been set up for the recruitment of executive secretaries and a salary advisory service has been established through the regular publication of statistical data on the range of salaries offered in different occupations.
The range of services has also been extended for those looking for appointments. More information is available to them now than ever before. There are group seminars about employment and

training opportunities, Training consultants help in identifying training needs and there are self-presentation courses to help candidates.
Apart from these improvements and despite the general reduction of the levels of recruitment, there has been a gradual and consistent improvement in the number of vacancies filled, as a proportion of those notified. The proportion is now about 25 per cent., and we realise that it will have to be increased if the service is to become financially self-sufficient. After about £2 million has been disregarded to cover the social obligations, it is estimated that the deficit will be about £400,000 this year. This compares with a deficit of £609,000 last year and £1 million in 1974/75. At the risk of being told off for being tediously repetitive, I think that I should repeat those figures.

Mr. Robert Taylor: What is the total amount, in each of those years of subvention from other Government Departments? The figures that the Minister has given are not the same as those received from the PAC, which indicated that last year's subvention was more than £1·1 million.

Mr. Golding: The figures that I have been given show that the subvention to cover the cost of the PER's social services is running at just over £2 million. It is estimated that this year's deficit will be £400,000, compared with £609,000 last year and £1 million in 1974–75. The PER expects that this improvement will continue next year, when the deficit is expected to be about £100,000. There has been a continuing improvement in the financial position, from a deficit of £1 million in 1974–75 to an estimated deficit of £100,000 in 1977–78.
I strongly support this subvention. It is important that there should be a State agency that is prepared to help unemployed professional and executive people to become more employable. One would not expect that service automatically to be provided by a commercial organisation. It is essential that it should be provided by a State system.
The Public Accounts Committee referred to PER in its Sixth Report and expressed some doubts about the service in its present form. In particular, there was some concern about the provision of


office accommodation that was separate from the general employment service and about some of the criteria for assessing the amount of social subvention. The Committee therefore recommended that my Department should reconsider with the MSC and Treasury the justification of the service in its present form and the posibility of carrying out its work at the new job centres. I understood that the criticisms were not of the existence of the service itself but of the form in which it was being provided.

Mr. Robert Taylor: I selected by words carefully. I said that the Public Accounts Committee scrutinised the service, and added that there was criticism from hon. Members in this House during the debate of 9th December. Several of them said, as I have said tonight, that the service was superfluous.

Mr. Golding: Some Opposition Members would oppose any State service if it were to take one penny piece from the pockets of private individuals who were in the business purely for profit.
The Committee suggested that the working of the service should be examined—that is always worth while in any Government Department—but the Committee did not suggest that the service should be discontinued. The Commission has recently reviewed the PER and has accepted the need for it to become financially self-supporting within the next two or three years. It will be closely monitoring the performance of the PER during that period and has set up a special committee under the Chairman of the Commission for that purpose.
As for merging the PER with job-centre services, the Commission believes that since this would mean abandoning fee charging and thus lead to a net increase in public expenditure, and since it is difficult to assess PER's prospects at present, it would be wrong to make such change at this stage. However, the Commission, with the Department and the Treasury, is now reviewing the social subvention and the financial and other implications of such a merger. It would be wrong for me to prejudge its findings or to anticipate what it will say.
We should not forget the solid achievements so far. The PER has faced and still faces considerable difficulties since

it was reorganised, which are none of its own making. Its staff have worked long and hard to develop a much more sophisticated and comprehensive service and the range and coverage of its facilities are second to none. Although the financial objective has not yet been met, the PER has succeeded in providing a greatly improved public employment and recruitment service at substantially less cost to public funds than the service it superseded. That is a creditable achievement.
I look forward to the time when the PER provides even fiercer competition for private agencies. I am certain that that day will come. Following my visit to Manchester I believe that the PER has a dedicated staff who are determined to make this State service a great credit to us all.

Orders of the Day — DISABLED PERSONS (VEHICLES)

3.49 a.m.

Miss Jo Richardson: I want to raise the subject of the withdrawal of three-wheeler vehicles from disabled people. This action has caused widespread concern not only among those who use the vehicles and who are faced with their withdrawal but among a large number of members of the public who have come to realise the great extent to which disabled people depend upon these three wheelers for getting to work and for other essential uses.
We lack readily understandable information about the Government's intentions in regard to those who face the eventual withdrawal of their personal transport and those who expected to qualify for a three-wheeler and to use it to get to work and be independent. Those in the latter category—those who have not yet had a three-wheeler or, indeed, a vehicle of any sort because they have not reached the age when they could qualify for one—will never even start to have an independent life unless the Government decide to retain the trikes on the old basis or phase in a successor.
Those disabled who have already built up an independent life take the view that the Government are taking away their means of livelihood. Many disabled people have been able to do useful jobs


because they have had a trike that has enabled them to get to work and participate in community life near their home.
The cash mobility allowance is welcome. It will help a wide range of people who are unable to drive. I do not think that everybody realises the difficulties that disabled people face and the extras that they need to enable them to cope. They have to face not just the ordinary cost of living, with which we all have to cope, but their own special needs. Many must have additional heating apparatus. They may be immobile, and unable to get round the home. They may need special heating apparatus—central heating, for example—whereas others who are more mobile may be able to manage with a cheaper type of heating appliance. Their disability may demand a greater safety factor than is required for those who are not disabled.
Some disabled need more expensive domestic appliances. An automatic washing machine may be a boon to many households. It is an absolute necessity to someone who cannot do the washing any other way. The disabled need additional storage space for their wheelchair and the special kitchen fitments that make life easier.
Many disabled people can rely on neighbours and good friends to help them with such heavy jobs as gardening, window cleaning, hedge clipping, and coping with electrical and other household repairs. However, many disabled people who live in isolated places or who do not have close friends living nearby have to pay someone to do these tasks, or the jobs just do not get done.
The cost of living, as the Government have recognised in providing the mobility allowance, is generally higher for the disabled. They cannot shop around for cheap cuts of meat or go from supermarket to supermarket looking for the best buy. They cannot indulge in the luxury of shopping around. Although convenience foods are rather more expensive than other foods, the disabled often have to resort to them and this adds to their cost of living.
In perhaps 1,000 other ways life for the disabled is much harder to cope with than for the able bodied, so the mobility allowance, small though it is is greatly welcomed by all, and is well spent. We know that it is to go up soon, and we hope

that the increase will be generous and substantial.
But the cost to disabled people is not only financial, and it must not be measured only in those terms. It is also a matter of human dignity, and that is why the announcement last July of the phasing out of the three-wheeler was received with such alarm and dismay. Only last week, I talked to a group of pensioners who live in Essex, near and in my constituency, and they told me that, as far as they could recall, the announcement was made on a Thursday or a Friday—approaching a weekend anyway—

Mr. J. W. Rooker: On a Friday.

Miss Richardson: My hon. Friend confirms that it was on a Friday—and over that weekend disabled people just did not know which way to turn. They could not understand the reasons given by the Secretary of State for phasing out the three-wheeler all of a sudden. The various organisations and others who have always looked after and helped the disabled were telephoned during that weekend by people in real panic who saw their trikes being taken from them quite soon—in some cases, of course, their fears were groundless—and who thought that in no time at all they would be prevented from working and from having the independence which they had achieved.
I hate to think what the youngsters who were expecting to get a three-wheeler must have felt when they heard about its withdrawal. For them, in many ways, it was the end of the road. At that moment they were condemned to feeling that they would be housebound for ever.
In his statement on 23rd July the Secretary of State said that the withdrawal was partly on the grounds of alarm about the maintenance of the vehicles. This is why my hon. Friends and I are raising the matter under Class XI, Vote 1, of the Supplementary Estimates. I am by no means wedded to the three-wheeler. There have been many conflicting stories and pieces of evidence about its safety. I am assured by friends who happen to be disabled that they believe the doubts about its safety to be exaggerated and that in fact it is not particularly unsafe in the way described in various journals and newspapers.
The characteristic of the three-wheeler that I do not like is entirely different. It is an unsocial vehicle. I find it easy to understand the complaints of those who have always wanted to have a car, a four-wheeler, a proper saloon, in exchange for the three-wheeler. When it is the man who is disabled, he complains that he cannot take his wife out with him and that the family is split up. Indeed, I had a divorce problem on my hands in my constituency precisely because the disabled driver, who naturally wanted to use his three-wheeler whenever he could, found himself drifting further and further from his wife and away from his home. In the end, she left him, and that was most unfortunate for him. I am not blaming the three-wheeler, but if he had had a car in which the family could have shared his delight in driving about, perhaps that would not have happened.
I want a clear statement from the Minister about his intentions for the mobility of existing and future drivers. If he expects to be able to introduce a successor vehicle so that no driver will face the loss of independence, I appeal to him to say so. We all know that the adapted Mini costs less, allowing for its longer life and for depreciation, than the trike does. Moreover, a good many people forget that the provision of a vehicle, whether it be a three-wheeler or an improved successor, saves the Government money. Those who have the three-wheeler and are able to use it to follow some employment are for that very reason not in receipt of unemployment benefit and some of the other benefits that the Government provide. In one sense, therefore, by the provision of a vehicle the Government are saving money in real terms.
We hear that prototypes are being developed and are being tested. We want to know a bit more about this—not necessarily in detail—and about whether there is a viable alternative. That is what existing and future trike drivers want to know.
In the meantime, however, if my hon. Friend is able to say that the Government are seriously considering an alternative, or a series of alternatives, and fully expect to come up with something by the time the three-wheelers are due to be

phased out, he should also—and I hope that the Parliamentary Labour Party insists upon it—agree to the existing trikes being made available to those who have not yet qualified or who are coming up for qualification, so that they are not deprived of vehicles.
My hon. Friend is the Minister with responsibility for the disabled, but I think that he is carrying the can for the Treasury. What we need is not a restriction on the money available for vehicles but a much greater allocation of cash to enable disabled people to be given even greater assistance and mobility. I think that, as often happens, the Treasury is at the back of this situation, despite the reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in his statement on 23rd July.
I know that financial assistance is available for travel to work through the Employment Services Agency. We have a fine leaflet which, although it is difficult to read and complicated to understand, describes how, under certain conditions and in certain circumstances—and granted that one thing and another are equal—one may be able to get some assistance to travel to work. I know, too, that there are ideas for commutation of that assistance with the mobility allowance to allow drivers to buy suitably-adapted small cars for themselves. But I beg my hon. Friend to believe that, although that will be helpful, it will only benefit a very small section.
The £5 cash mobility allowance, even if raised to £7 or a higher figure, will be able to be put towards cars only by those who are already a little better off and who do not need to use this extra money as some kind of cushion against the general increase in the cost of living. The great majority of disabled people need the £5 simply in order to cope with their general way of life.
Even more help will be needed, if there is some scheme for private purchase of a suitable car, in the form of a concession on car tax and value added tax—and a generous concession at that. That is another reason why I wish that a Treasury Minister were here, because it is the Treasury that will have to decide whether a generous concession can be made on car tax and VAT.
To get any scheme of this sort going would, I believe, require closer liaison


between the Departments of Health and Social Security and Employment and the Treasury. There must be a smoothing and simplification of the form-filling that disabled people have to go through, otherwise they just will not be able to cope. I am sure that my hon. Friend, like the rest of us, has had complaints from all directions about the difficulty of claiming benefits and of the categories and complications of those benefits. They are often difficult enough for us to understand—and we deal with such things regularly—but they are almost impossible for the average severely disabled or chronic sick person to comprehend. They really are a disaster for them to look at.
One constituent came along to my advice bureau recently with all the leaflets, asking "Please help me sort out what I am entitled to. How can I claim? Do I first go to the Employment Services Agency or the DHSS? What can I do?" In addition, his copy of the mobility allowance leaflet had sections crossed out in ink because they made reference to claiming for a vehicle, which is now defunct.
Leaflet 219, issued in December 1966, on the phasing out of the invalid tricycle, makes reference to the need for a specialised vehicle when invalid tricycles are no longer replaced. It simply says that the Government have undertaken to look at what is available on home and world markets to help such people. That is a very vague sentence. It is certainly no commitment.
I hope that the Minister can turn this into a positive commitment that a successor vehicle will be available and that no gap will be left between the phasing out of the three-wheeler and the introduction of any successor. If there is no successor we on the Government Benches, together with all the disablement groups right across the spectrum, will continue to press for the maintenance of the three-wheeler in its present form.
I hope that the Government will look again at those who are now prevented from applying for their first vehicle and will keep the three-wheeler going until there is something better. The Minister has been in his job a long time and is constantly in touch with what is going on. I know that he has great compassion for disabled people. I do not need to tell

him that "permanently disabled" means permanently. We should permanently provide mobility for those who wish to use it.

4.7 a.m.

Mr. J. W. Rooker: I agree with every word that my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson) has just said. I shall not delay the House at this late hour by repeating what my hon. Friend has said. I hope the Minister will take that as read.
My hon. Friend will know and understand that I wish to raise slightly different matters concerning the supply of vehicles for the disabled. I wish that we were debating spending a greater amount of money than we are. It is a piffling amount.
I start by referring to the Secretary of State's statement of 23rd July, 1976. I wish to draw the attention of the House to two points in that statement. First, my right hon. Friend gave examples of the reasons why the withdrawal of the trike was being announced and stated:
But there is now a decisive new factor. The progress of international standards in this field now makes it most probable that before long the limits of the present design of the tricycle will have been reached."—[Official Report, 23rd July, 1976; Vol. 915, c. 2230.]
As it stands that is not very explanatory. At the conclusion of his statement my right hon. Friend was asked a question by the Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr. Jenkin). At the beginning of that question the right hon. Gentleman used the words
Will he tell the House whether the Department now regards the trike as safe or not, or is it just the EEC standards are higher than those which his Department is prepared to accept?"—[Official Report, 23rd July, 1976 Vol. 915, c. 2232.]
The right hon. Gentleman asked several more questions. My right hon. Friend took about two columns to reply, but failed to mention or refer to the right hon. Gentleman's remark about EEC standards. To those of us who are not experts in this matter, on reading the statement—clearly many of us were not present that Friday, having had no notice that the statement was being made—the implication of the question was that the trike would fail to meet the EEC standards and international requirements.
For many months, that has been the position. It is one that I have not looked into in great detail—that is, until I was prompted to do so recently by the answer to a parliamentary Question.
However, before coming to that, I want to refer to three or four publications emanating from my right hon. and hon. Friends since the decision to phase out the trike was made, which again give that impression. Although it has been unintentional, the impression which has got about both inside and outside this House is that one of the reasons why the trike is being phased out is that it fails to meet international design standards which this country is required to meet.
The first one is the letter from the Secretary of State in December 1976 to all trike drivers. In fact, it went out to about 30,000 people, because it was also sent to those who use four-wheeled cars. In that letter, my right hon. Friend said that the trike
…cannot meet all the design requirements of the future—requirements which will apply to new cars generally, not just to invalid tricycles.
The second statement to which I draw attention was by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. It was a very brief, simplistic statement, issued by him through the Whips' Office so that hon. Members might be able to reply to their constituents' inquiries. Nevertheless, it was a statement by a Minister, and it contained the following sentence:
The reason why the tricycle cannot form part of our mobility policy in the longer term is that the vehicle will not, for very much longer, conform with international design standards to which Britain must subscribe.
The third statement to which I draw attention is DHSS leaflet No. NI. 219 issued in December 1976, called "Phasing out the Invalid Tricycle". On page 2, the first paragraph reads:
Nor can the trike go on meeting higher international standards of vehicle design.
The last statement to which I draw attention is contained in a document entitled "A Memorandum on the Government's Mobility Policy for Disabled People". When an hon. Member makes representations to the Secretary of State on behalf of his constituents, this docu-

ment usually accompanies the first letter that he receives from the Department. In the second paragraph, it says that the trike
cannot meet all the design requirements of the future. These design requirements will apply to new cars generally, not just to invalid tricycles.
It took me until February of this year—after receiving representations from my constituents and meeting many drivers of the trike who were upset about the decision to withdraw it and who did not understand all the reasons behind the decision to withdraw it but look upon hon. Members as being expert in these matters—to ask myself whether I could not discover more information, and what were the real reasons.
On 9th February, I tabled a Written Question to my hon. Friend asking him whether he would publish the international design standards that the Department's tricycle would not meet and would specify the legislation that required Her Majesty's Government to subscribe to the standards.
Two crucial factors are to have the design requirements itemised and to have specified the legislation that requires the Government to insist that the design requirements should be met. In a fairly lengthy reply, my hon. Friend pointed out that the design requirements concerned interior fittings and external projections. These will be demanded from 1st October 1978, under a Statutory Instrument. No reference to the instrument was given, but it was entitled
Motor Vehicles (Type Approvals) (Great Britain) Regulations".
Reference was then made to EEC requirements on dual circuit brakes. There was an important sentence in the answer. which read
Her Majesty's Government do not deem it appropriate to supply vehicles that would not comply with the regulations applicable to the generality of private motor vehicles."—[Official Report, 9th February 1977; Vol. 925, c. 704.]
That sentence was superfluous. I did not ask for that information. The Question, however, was not answered in the detail that I had hoped for. Perhaps I asked the wrong question. When I get an answer that I did not ask for and do not get the answer that I sought I get very suspicious.
After receiving that answer I found in the Library Statutory Instrument No. 937 of 1976. That instrument is the law of the land. In it, Article 3 applies the instrument to vehicles with three wheels. The definition excludes motor cycles or vehicles with an engine of less than 50 cc. The Statutory Instrument contains a list of 19 design requirements, two of which I am told the trike cannot meet. On that basis alone the decision was taken to phase it out.
Requirements 18 and 19 cover internal fittings and external projections. Details are given of where to find the details of the requirement—for example, the size of the projections and the types of interior fittings. It explains that Council Directive 74/60 of 17th December 1973 covers interior fittings, and that Council Directive 74/483 of 17th September 1974 deals with external projections.
There is a reference in the Statutory Instrument to the Official Journal of the Community concerning details of these directives. The Library sorted out for me the particulars of these two directives in the Official Journal of the Community. I must explain that directives are not mandatory on this country, but that regulations are. Article 1 in each of the directives states that for the purposes of the directives vehicles are defined as having four wheels. Neither of the directives therefore actually applies to the trike. The Government not the Commission or the European Parliament have decided that they should apply to the trike.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I am reaching the stage at which I cannot see how the hon. Member's comments are related to the Vote under consideration. The Statutory Instruments on specifications have nothing to do with the Vote. I hope that the hon. Member can establish that relationship.

Mr. Rooker: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I submit that it is relevant, because we are discussing the increased amount—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: What are we discussing?

Mr. Rooker: The increased amount of expenditure on the supply and maintenance of vehicles for disabled persons.
I have already said that there is not enough money in that Vote. We are discussing an increase of about £2½ million on expenditure of about £15 million a year.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As far as I am aware, the hon. Gentleman is discussing questions of regulations to be laid down in 1978 by Statutory Instruments, and many other matters that I consider to be wholly irrelevant. What the hon. Gentleman said he is speaking to is in order, and I hope that he will stick to that.

Mr. Rooker: I shall be brief and to the point. I did not want to repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Barking said about the great concern in the country about the decision to phase out the trike and the reasons given for the change in the supply and maintenance of vehicles for the disabled. I have taken a matter that is slightly different, drawing attention to the fact that the decisions announced by the Government are based not on external, international requirements but on the Government's own ideas. To that extent, I think that it is very relevant to draw attention to the directives concerned.
The Government have now said that they are going on to world markets to look for other vehicles. It would be a tragedy if we supplied the disabled with vehicles from abroad that we could easily build in this country. The French have produced a three-wheeled vehicle capable of carrying two people. It is not an unsociable vehicle as the existing trike provided by the Department is. Called the Addax, it has a 47 cc engine. A recent disabled drivers' bulletin suggested that if the French could produce such a vehicle perhaps the international regulations were not so tightly drawn as one would have thought.
I fear that Britain will lose its technological advantage, as in so many other cases, if we make the wrong decision and if my hon. Friend does not take hon. Members' representations on board. We are in advance of many other countries in the provision of mobility for the disabled. There is hardly a country in the world that matches the United Kingdom in the provision of vehicles or other aids, mainly because of the work of my how Friend and others.
I do not want Britain to be forced to import a foreign-built three-wheeled vehicle as an emergency measure because it meets one of the criticisms of the existing trike, which is widely accepted to be unsociable because it takes only one person. The House needs to be warned. The Government have not spelt out to the disabled why they have made their decision. My hon. Friend will say that he will not be responsible for putting an unsafe vehicle on the roads, whatever the cost of building and maintaining it. I accept that. I should not want that responsibility. At the same time, it is incumbent on my hon. Friend and the Government to make it clear that the decision is based on safety requirements and not on the so-called international requirements to which this country must subscribe.
The Government's decision has caused great unrest. My hon. Friend has probably answered thousands of letters. Indeed, many members of the public write to the top. They do not go to their local Member of Parliament or to my hon. Friend or his right hon. Friend; they go to No. 10. They write to the Prime Minister.
Many people are not satisfied that the decision is a good one, bearing in mind the expenditure involved, and they are receiving replies from No. 10 giving reasons based largely on expenditure and design requirements that the Government are not prepared to meet to give extra mobility to the disabled.
1 am unhappy about one aspect of the letters going out from No. 10, which my hon. Friend has probably seen. They repeat the canard about international requirements, which is not true. At the same time, they talk about what we should do for the disabled in terms of mobility, whether it is four-wheeled cars or anything else. That aspect is important. I am not a supporter of the trike per se; I am a supporter of the status quo, on the ground that the alternative offered is worse.
The letters from the Prime Ministers Office relate to and discuss decisions taken a year ago at a conference on provision for the disabled. In fact, it was a conference on "The mobility allowance—Four-wheeled vehicle."
Obviously the Government will be pressured to spend more money on mobility for the disabled. We are keen to get a mobility allowance which can be commuted so that people may spend it as they wish. We want them to be able to spend it on a four-wheeled vehicle, if they wish, in the absence of the three-wheeler.
The letters sent out by the Government say that the conference showed a clear consensus that a specialist vehicle was not required. I do not know how a consensus can be formed when one-third of the members at that conference—I have looked at the report—took the opposite view. I understand that a consensus view is one with which the majority are prepared to agree. I do not think that two-thirds is a sufficient majority.
I was concerned to find that there were no representatives of the majority of disabled motorists' organisations at the conference, but there were many commercial interests that would be only too willing to knock on my hon. Friend's door and ask for a big slice of the extra expenditure that will be voted tonight. Obviously there is a profit motive. I accept that there is also a desire to serve the disabled. But many commercial interests were represented at the conference. Therefore, the Government should not use decisions voiced at a conference specifically dealing with a four-wheeled vehicle as reasons for phasing out the three-wheeler. The two matters are quite separate. The Government have used that conference and the EEC regulations as a shield for not spelling out clearly their own reasons for getting rid of the trike.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking said that the Government should allow those who, since 1st August last year, have not been able to get the trike to have the choice of having the trike until they have a chance of commuting their mobility allowance for a car. That is the most vulnerable area. I understand that about 1,000 people a year, because of disability, would be entitled to go for the trike. About 1,000 people a year are missing out, and a payment of £5 a week is not good enough. As a constituent of mine said, one cannot put wheels on a £5 note. Only someone who


suffers the immobility of the disabled knows what that means.
The provisions to get people to work have often been used as a red herring and would not serve one of my disabled constituents, who is aged 61. The Employment Services Agency will not provide help for people over the normal retirement age. My constituent is independent. She is not a drain on the State. She pays income tax and therefore contributes. It would be a tragedy if people like her were to lose their mobility and the opportunity of remaining independent. That is important.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thought that the point about the importance of the debate had already been settled.

Mr. Rooker: I was about to sit down before you intervened, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have reached my conclusion and I am grateful to you for allowing me to put my arguments, which are relevant.

4.32 a.m.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: We are considering the costs of supply, repair and maintenance of invalid tricycles.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are considering the Supplementary Estimates.

Mrs. Wise: I was about to say that, in addition, we are discussing the money that has to be expended for those purposes. The supply, repair and maintenance of tricycles is proportionately expensive when compared to vehicles in general. It is proper for the House to give full consideration to whether we are receiving the best possible value for the money expended, including the additional money that we are considering today.
It is also correct to take into account the money which has been expended on the mobility allowance. I join with my hon. Friends in sincerely welcoming the important principle of extending mobility money to people who cannot drive. We all approve of this valuable extension and we give full credit for it to our hon. Friend on the Front Bench. If our subsequent remarks appear to be critical I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.
The supply, repair and maintenance of invalid tricycles is proportionately expensive because they are specialist vehicles.
Their design features give rise to problems to which hon. Members have briefly referred. First, there is the problem of passenger space. In that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Miss Richardson).
The safety aspect of tricycles needs more careful consideration. Disabled drivers make bitter comments about the attacks on the trike, particularly those by the racing driver who took a trike on the M4 and complained that it was affected by cross-winds. My constituents have said that might be so, but their requirement is not to go on a motorway. They want to get round the local streets and town centres. If they were told that these vehicles could not be of a sufficient standard to be safe on motorways, they would accept that. Their main requirement is immediate mobility in their own towns. As I say, they feel rather bitter about that kind of measurement of safety.
They also feel rather bitter if we say, in considering the safety aspect, "These vehicles are not sufficiently safe. They cannot be made sufficiently safe. Therefore, we shall, in effect, keep you at home in greater safety". If that is the choice before disabled people—and, in a real way, that is the choice—it is a dilemma rather than a choice. It is a dilemma that disabled people themselves would solve by saying "We shall go on the roads even in an inferior vehicle."
We are considering money this morning. Despite the disproportionate cost of repair and supply of these vehicles, the money expended can nevertheless lead to great savings. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister is presiding over an increase in expenditure on mobility for disabled people from £13 million to £39 million, and we welcome that. It must be said, of course, that the sum still remains too small. I know that the Minister would welcome a further increase in the amount.
However, the money being expended on these vehicles, including the additional money that we are discussing now, can and does lead to substantial savings in other directions. For example, it can make all the difference between being employed and not being employed. If a person is employed, he is a contributor to the revenue, and not simply a drawer from the revenue. It has been put to me


very forcefully that disabled people can sometimes use the trike as a sort of springboard. The money that they then earn because they can take employment in the first place enables them to graduate from a trike to a more suitable vehicle for which they themselves can pay. But, as they say, if they had not had the trike in the first place, they would have been a drain on State funds. They would never have achieved the degree of mobility or usefulness as citizens that the trike has enabled them to achieve.
It must also be said that not every disabled person is capable of finding employment, especially in times of high unemployment. Nevertheless, the fact that they have personal transport can mean, for example, that they can make their hospital visits themselves instead of having to rely on the provision of ambulance services. Ambulance services are under great stress and are an expensive provision. If we can relieve the need for their use by some disabled people—who, after all, often have to make regular visits to hospitals—that is a saving.
If disabled people are enabled to use the facilities provided by local authorities in many areas, again that is a saving. It has been put to me that, because of the phasing out of the trike, the time will come when many disabled people are unable to use facilities that have been provided for them at considerable expense. That would be very wasteful. There is a further saving, inasmuch as many disabled people are able to do their own shopping instead of calling more upon the scarce and expensive services of home helps, provided by local authorities. Although we are discussing money which is being spent, we are also discussing money which leads to the saving of other money, and this is wholly worth while.
I am aware, of course, that there is a considerable time lapse before the trike is finally phased out. My hon. Friend has assured me that spares will continue to be available for several years. I welcome that assurance, and I am trying to convince my disabled constituents. They are very worried, and they feel insecure. I hope that there will be many more times when Consolidated Fund items concerning the repair and maintenance of in-

valid tricycles will still appear in the Estimates. Rightly or wrongly, many disabled people feel very insecure, and I only hope that we can convince them that their fears are not well founded.
There are also people who are not covered by these Supplementary Estimates—people who would have been covered had they not qualified for the provision of a tricycle after July of last year. I have had the unpleasant task of writing to an 18-year-old constituent and explaining to him that whereas under the previous scheme he was entitled to personal transport of his own, he is not so entitled now. That was a most painful task. Saying that we have increased expenditure from £13 million to £39 million is not an adequate answer. It. is asking too much of an 18-year-old to expect him to accept that answer as adequate.
If one receives a letter from a young person who is full of eagerness to live a full and useful life, it is very difficult to tell him that he is not now entitled to a vehicle to which he would have been entitled had the scheme not been changed. We must reconsider the whole matter. I am very concerned about this because I have in my constituency one of the only two colleges of further education which are specifically and entirely for the disabled. I am acutely aware of the problems of disabled young people, and 1 know the alarm and panic they felt when the Minister made his announcement. I am afraid that the panic and alarm were well founded, because there is no denying that they will not have personal transport to which they would otherwise have been entitled.
Despite the fact that these vehicles are disproportionately expensive, and despite the fact that the Minister has to ask for Supplementary Estimates, he must consider that this is money well spent.
I also urge the Minister to reassure us about the problems of disabled mothers, who have been in a special position and are very alarmed about their position in the future.
I know that my hon. Friend is keen on cash rather than hardware, but it is hardware that we are discussing tonight. I ask him to consider whether he is right to feel that the provision of cash is necessarily and always better in principle


than the provision of hardware. I believe that the provision of cash is right as a minimum safety net, because not everybody can benefit by the provision of personal transport. That is common ground between us. I am pleased that children are covered by the mobility allowance. I am pleased, too, that people who are far too disabled to be able to drive are covered by the £5 allowance. This is something that can be done with cash that cannot be done by the provision of personal hardware, and to that extent I agree with my hon. Friend. However, we have to look not only at the fact that disabled people are disabled but at the fact that they retain abilities. Our provisions in respect of mobility must be designed to make full use of every ability that every disabled person retains. This is where the provision of hardware is so important. This is where the provision of vehicles is far more significant than my hon. Friend will allow.
I suggest that it is possible to ensure that the State gets a kind of double value out of the expenditure on mobility if we tie it to some extent and for some people to the provision of vehicles. We are a vehicle-producing country, and it seems reasonable to say that some of the money which goes from the Department to disabled people should be channelled into vehicles produced by the British motor industry.
I suggest that this will happen only if the system is structured for it. I do not think that to give money and leave it at that would produce the effect that I should like to see, because it is far too diffuse. We have to structure a ready-made market for invalid vehicles. If we cease to provide the kind of invalid vehicle which is now provided, we should structure the provision of others which should be produced by British industry.
Why should we channel funds from the State direct into the car industry, as we do, when we could channel some of those funds via disabled people and on behalf of disabled people into the motor industry and at the same time ensure the provision of vehicles for them? I think that there is a real chance of getting the best possible value for the money expended by the State on mobility for disabled people if we link it directly with the provision of vehicles, and I ask my hon. Friend to look more closely at that.
The representations that we are making are not just drawn from our own heads but are made because of the strong views put to us by disabled people who are anxious that such abilities as they have will continue to be fully exercised. I welcome the additional money that we are spending on the mobility allowance and in terms of this Supplementary Estimate, but I ask my hon. Friend to look earnestly at these additional points.

4.49 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Alfred Morris): My hon. Friends the Members for Barking (Miss Richardson), Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), and Coventry, South-West (Mrs. Wise), have shown a clear and sincere concern for the interests of disabled people. I am most grateful to them for their speeches, and I shall do my best, notwithstanding the hour of the morning, to give the fullest possible reply.
What I am sure unites us all is that we are giving more mobility help to assist more disabled people than has been given by any other Government in the history of this country. We are now in the process of further increasing expenditure on mobility for the disabled, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West acknowledged. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Barking for her opening remarks on the importance and value of the mobility allowance. She referred to the wider needs of disabled people, and she will appreciate that I am conscious of these.
My hon. Friend also referred to problems of communication. This is a difficult and daunting task for us all and it becomes more difficult as we improve the provision for disabled people. I have been associated with the introduction of several new benefits, and I know that the wider the provision that we make the more difficult can become the problem of communication.
I wish to stress that the decision to cease production of the invalid tricycle was not taken lightly. In our judgment, it had become inevitable. As my right hon. Friend said in July, progress on international standards makes it most probable that before long the limits of the present design will have been reached.
Tricycles cannot be made as stable as four-wheelers, and even if they meet the regulations that apply to them today they cannot be expected to meet all the design requirements of the future. Here I am referring to the design requirements applying to all cars in general and not just to tricycles. Only the timing of the phasing out offered any real choice. That was the background to the decision to phase out the invalid three-wheeler.
I emphasise that there was no question of trying to economise at the expense of severely disabled people. Unfortunately, it is clear from correspondence that I have received that there is real misunderstanding on this point. If economy had been the Government's intention, we would not have launched the mobility allowance. There are many more severely disabled people who cannot drive than who can drive, and it was obvious from the start that to include non-drivers was bound to increase expenditure considerably.
Despite our severe economic conditions, the Government are in the process of trebling public expenditure on mobility for the disabled. This is an important point, and behind it lies the Government's determination to help drivers and non-drivers alike.
New legislation which has been approved by this House and' is being considered in another place seeks to give every disabled person with a tricycle or private car allowance under the pre–1976 scheme the right to switch to mobility allowance without age limit. This will be of considerable help to many disabled drivers.
We are keeping in touch with developments affecting various protoypes and my right hon. Friend has given the following pledge:
We accept that, whatever the Government may be able to do to increase the mobility allowance further, there will be people who will still need a specialised vehicle when their tricycles can no longer be replaced. As 1 made clear to Parliament in July, the Government will be looking at what is available on home and world markets to help such people.
The Government will be trying to make sure that no one who is now mobile will be made immobile by the phasing out of the tricycle—except where increased dis-

ability itself makes this unavoidable. In such cases, a person will, under our new proposals, have the choice of a cash allowance to reduce his dependence on others. This is a step forward for disabled drivers who become too disabled to drive.
Another important change announced by my right hon. Friend on 23rd July which is still not widely appreciated will be of immediate help to many thousands of disabled drivers. Until now, the disabled driver whose vehicle or car allowance was granted under the old NHS vehicle scheme for the express purpose of enabling him to get to and from work was liable to lose his vehicle if he lost his job. We shall now no longer withdraw the vehicle or the allowance in those circumstances.
We shall, where possible, replace their vehicles when they wear out so long as supplies are available, which we expect to be until at least 1981. Such drivers will also have a new right to switch to the mobility allowance if they wish—another major step forward. It was my responsibility to tell the disabled driver in category 3 that he would lose his vehicle if he lost his job. I am glad that we are now carrying through legislation to remove that defect of the previous scheme.
As for maintenance and repair, we have no intention of either scrapping the existing fleet of three-wheelers prematurely or of allowing it to deteriorate through lack of proper maintenance and repair. On the contrary, the aim is to secure the maximum possible economic service from the fleet. Subject to the necessary parliamentary approvals, the Government will make financial provision to secure a continued supply of vehicle parts, supported by the necessary maintenance services.
The particular point at which of scrap a vehicle rather than refurbish it is a matter for judgment case by case. All my hon. Friends who have spoken tonight represent constituencies with direct connections with the motor industry, so they will appreciate that point. They will also realise that I would need a remarkable crystal ball to foretell the useful life of each vehicle in the fleet, which will continue to be augmented by new supplies of vehicles until the end of March 1978.
I wish to restate my right hon. Friend's undertaking in his letter to each three-wheeler user that we expect to replace three-wheelers as they wear out, at least until 1981. We have good reason to hope that it will be possible to continue to replace vehicles beyond 1981.
All the pointers are that the problems associated with maintaining and repairing the fleet are unlikely to give rise to insuperable difficulties. The firms which undertake maintenance and repair—the approved repairers, as they are known—have shown every willingness to continue their long tradition of service both to disabled drivers and to the Department. Equally, manufacturers are affording the Department full co-operation in determining the requirement of vehicle parts and securing their supply in an orderly and efficient way.
The continuous monitoring or repair and maintenance arrangements is of cardinal importance. There was undertandable concern at a report by the Automobile Association in its magazine Drive in the autumn of 1975, which strongly criticised the mechanical condition of a number of invalid tricycles. This is not the time for detailed discussion of that report, but I was sufficiently disturbed by its contents to make arrangements with the ready co-operation of the then Minister for Transport, for a sample of 400 of our vehicles chosen at random to be subjected to a critical independent mechanical examination by expert staff of the Department of the Environment.
A copy of the report has been placed in the Library. It showed that, particularly in some areas, the standards of technical maintenance were not sufficiently high having regard to the type of vehicle and the physical disabilities of its drivers. It was apparent that a small number of firms had given cause for real concern. All but one have now ceased to do repair and mainenance work for the Department, and that one has improved immeasurably but still functions under close surveillance. There will be no hesitation in striking the company off the list of approved repairers if the evidence justifies such a course. I need hardly add that this will apply with equal rigour to any firm which in the future is found not to measure up to the standards required.
My hon. Friends will know of, and I trust wil be reassured by, our decision to

make the invalid three-wheeler subject to the MOT vehicle test. My right hon. Friend has in hand the necessary consultations prior to tabling appropriate regulations to implement that decision. This will be a very valuable additional safeguard to supplement the preventive maintenance regime which already exists for invalid tricycles. The test will embrace all the new features of the vehicle tests appropriate to the class of vehicle.
My hon. Friends the Members for Barking and for Coventry, South-West referred to the question of safety. I take pride in the fact that this Government have published a very great deal of new information about the safety of invalid tricycles. The figures have appeared in the annual reports on road accidents published by the Department of Transport. There is no doubt that the accident rate is substantially higher than for cars. The reasons may well be complex, as was said by both my hon. Friends, but the facts are not in doubt. Moreover, what the figures appeared strongly to suggest was that new users were more at risk than others. Again I can assure my hon. Friends that I am taking the closest possible interest in the safety issue.
Many people entitled to mobility allowance will want to achieve independent mobility in a vehicle of their own which they are physically able to drive. That does not necessarily mean a vehicle of wholly specialised design, because for many people adapted production cars are a better way of meeting their needs.
The distinction between specialised vehicles and adapted production cars needs to be very clearly understood. Just over half the people being helped by the old vehicle scheme were receiving the private car allowance to run cars of their own. Of those who drive tricycles, a substantial majority could certainly drive production cars either in their normal form or adapted by conversion of foot controls to hand operation. Many of those who use wheelchairs have sufficient mobility to stand and get into and out of a car, while others can transfer in various ways from wheelchair to car seat. The steering difficulties of people whose disabilities affect their arms and the problems encountered in getting into and out of a car by people who cannot bend are looked on as factors tending to favour specialised vehicles, as distinct


from adapting ordinary cars, although it may be that developments will extend the range of adaptations available to help those people.
Wherever adaptation of production cars is feasible, it could well be more acceptable to many disabled people and a better use of resources than achieving the same technical capability by a specially designed vehicle. Not least of the advantages is that adaptation devices may be capable of being fitted to several different types of car.
Disabled people's motoring needs are not all specially related to their disabilities. They also vary according to such factors as family size, the need to carry luggage, and sheer personal taste, which affect all car users.
At the same time, as my right hon. Friend has made clear, we are very genuinely concerned with the problems of disabled people who will still need a specialised vehicle when we are no longer able to replace their tricycles after 1981. We are, therefore, keeping in touch with development projects which can lead to a better choice of specialised vehicles or specialised adaptations to production cars for disabled people. I myself have recently inspected two such projects.
Moreover, my Department and the Department of Transport are jointly studying the available information and are considering what further research is desirable to pick out and encourage among the many possible lines of development those adaptations or prototype specialised vehicles which have the best prospects of effectively meeting the needs of disabled people. These measures should help us to fulfil our aim of ensuring that no one who has a tricycle issued under the old scheme is made immobile as a result of the phasing out of the tricycle.
We do not yet know how many existing tricycle users may choose to take the mobility allowance. So far, the choice has been available to fewer than half of them. But the legislation now being considered in another place will give this choice also to drivers who are outside the normal mobility allowance age groups or who were given their tricycles specifically to help them to get to and from work and are not quite so

severely disabled as to be normally eligible. Only when we see the choices exercised by this group shall we be able fully to judge the extent and the nature of the need for specialised vehicles.
I must emphasise the point which I am now making. My hon. Friends will readily appreciate that it is often not possible to select the best solution to a problem until the size of the problem is known. At this stage, none of us can predict with any accuracy—indeed, it would be arrogant for us to try—how many tricycle drivers in category 3, for example, will use their new freedom to choose in favour of cash or hardware. As I say, they will soon have an entirely new choice.
I now turn to the way in which the safety standards set by the EEC are given effect in this country. The factor of real significance is the tricycle's inability to go on meeting the regulations which will apply in future in Great Britain. These are regulations made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport not simply in order to fall into line reluctantly with other people's regulations but with the positive aim of promoting the safety of all who use vehicles on our roads.
Certainly, there is a link between the content of our regulations and the standards set by EEC directives, even though in applying to three-wheeled vehicles, our regulations will go beyond the strict terms of the EEC directives. But my right hon. Friend has taken the view that in this country all vehicles on our roads, whether they have three wheels or four, should be required to be built to the same high standards. He has done so after careful consideration of the road safety aspects, and I am sure that the House would not have wished me, as Minister with responsibility for the disabled, to press for exceptions from safety requirements to allow for lower safety standards for the tricycles used by disabled people. I stress to my hon. Friend the Member for Perry Barr that I am speaking here about safety standards.
The supply of cars to all drivers and non-drivers who wanted them would involve the supply of well over 100,000 cars, with all the large-scale bureaucratic machinery that that would entail. Yet it would still discriminate against those who


can neither drive nor have anybody to drive them. There are people—and they are among the most disadvantaged in our society today—who can neither drive nor have anyone to drive them.
Moreover, it would double the cost of the scheme to supply cars to everyone who wanted them. If we could afford to do that, which we certainly cannot in present economic circumstances, we should equally be able to afford a substantial increase in the mobility allowance or a major extension of the range of eligibility for the scheme, if claims for some different kind of help for disabled people were not seen to have even greater priority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Barking referred to the very wide-ranging needs of the disabled. There is a great debate now about the rival claims of those who would argue for more cash and those who would argue for more services for disabled people. I am trying to achieve the best possible balance between the two.
I have already assured my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West that I am not unmindful of the claims of those who will still need a specialised vehicle when we are no longer able to replace the tricycle after 1981.
The advent of the mobility allowance was an important breakthrough for the severely disabled. For the first time ever, the new allowance helps those who cannot drive as well as those who can. It extends outdoor mobility help to about 100,000 disabled people, including many thousands of severely disabled children who received no mobility help whatever under the old scheme. Payments are already being made to children in the 11 to 14 age group, and claims are now being accepted for severely disabled children aged 5 to 10 years, to whom payments will begin in April.
In addition to the mobility allowance, there are special arrangements which can benefit people registered as disabled with the Employment Service Agency who are unable to use public transport and need either a car or a taxi to get to work. They may be eligible for additional financial help over and above the mobility allowance from the Agency. They can apply for this if they no longer have a

trike or have one that is temporarily off the road for repairs.
The Department of Employment recognises that there is scope for the scheme to be used more fully to help keep people in full-time work, and we are in close touch with them on the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-West referred to a particular case. I am not certain whether the intended expansion of the Agency's scheme could help there. If she would like to have a word with me about it, I shall be delighted to see whether there is any possibility of help in that direction or, indeed, whether there is any other possibility of help.
I recognise that the new mobility allowance would be attractive to even more people if it were paid at a higher rate. We made clear our intention to up-rate the allowance later this year. We have said that we want to increase it if possible in real terms.
The efforts of the Central Council for the Disabled to find ways of helping beneficiaries to make the best use of the mobility allowance are also important. I am in close touch with the council about its valuable work in this matter, but it is not for me to make any announcement for it. It is in very close rapport with the motor manufacturers and others who are seeking to arrange to give disabled people the best possible value for their mobility allowance.
I emphasise also that the idea of the new allowance came initially from disabled people themselves. They and their organisations fiercely disagreed with Lady Sharp's recommendation for a cutback in the number of disabled people entitled to mobility allowance. By contrast, they urged the Department to give help to drivers and non-drivers alike. They held it to be a cruel anomaly that people who did not drive received no help. Under the old scheme, help for a disabled person was based, quite illogically, on ability to drive and on the disability of the individual person. It was to correct this fundamental anomaly that we moved towards providing cash payments for all severely disabled people on the basis of their disabilities.
I am conscious that this debate has gone on for some time. I shall be glad to remain in contact with my hon. Friends.
The debate has shown their obvious concern for the interests of disabled people. They will appreciate that 1, too, am deeply concerned to build on the advances we have made in improving mobility for disabled people. I assure them that I shall do all I can further to improve provision for disabled people with my hon. Friends' speeches very much in mind.

Question put and agreed to. Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House; immediately considered in Committee pursuant to the Order of the House this day; reported, without amendment.

Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills) and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS REMOVAL INDUSTRY

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Frank R. White.]

5.15 a.m.

Mr. Bruce George: My delight in obtaining this Adjournment debate has been ever so slightly tempered by the fact that it would take place at an extremely late hour. At 5.15 a.m. my worst fears are confirmed. It is a testimony to the importance of the subject that both the Minister and I are still present for this debate on the overseas removal industry.
I have no financial interest whatever in this industry, although in my adolescence I worked for my grandfather's small road haulage business which gave me some insight into the problems, the strength but, more important, the potential weaknesses of that industry.
My first awareness of companies going into liquidation followed investigations into the complaint of a constituent angered at the treatment of her daughter who had gone to Australia and had hired, in my view, the misnamed company QRS—Quality Removals and Shippers—to transport her furniture and personal belongings to Australia.
The QRS brochure, in extolling its virtues, states:
The next thing you know, everything arrives safely at your new home".
Regrettably they did not. The brochure goes on
Complete and post the reply paid card with confidence and you have my personal assurance"—
states the managing director—
that QRS will look after you every inch of the way.
The word "inch" is important to at least 400 people because their goods travelled no more than a few inches and never moved from warehouses in the West Midlands. Indeed, many people who lost their money had to pay again for another company, admittedly at concessionary rates but at a higher rate than the original if they were to have their goods moved to their new homes.
Another company, Seven Seas, based in Southampton, got into difficulties leaving behind many hundreds of frustrated and angry customers, and one of them, already having had the misfortune of hiring QRS, lost her money a second time.
The scene returns to Walsall—the West Midlands seems to have more than its fair share of removal companies getting into difficulties— where Oceanmount ceased trading—its leading light was said to be a Mr. Hustead who has been rather difficult to trace—and another set of poor unfortunates were involved. Many of the people involved with Oceanmount still have their belongings at a farm in Shropshire, and a Mr. Gough, who owns the warehouse, is not letting the goods free until he is paid. I wonder whether the Minister can think of ways in which these goods can be released to the people who have migrated? One person who had paid a fee to Oceanmount must pay another fee and an additional £151·20p, including VAT, to have his goods released from storage in Shropshire.
The collapse of these companies is worthy of close examination, and in the case of QRS and Oceanmount, I trust a very thorough examination. The financial disaster which led to these companies going into liquidation is very considerable.
These companies are not entirely separate entities. The liquidator of QRS,


a Mr. Leopard, was reported in the Birmingham Post on 18th January as saying:
It is evident from my investigations there are certain links between QRS and Ocean-mount.
I go further and say that there are considerable links, and I hope that in the public interest there will be a very close investigation so that the true facts can be established.
In the case of Seven Seas, I personally have no evidence of any impropriety, but I believe that here, too, it is in the public interest that there should be a close scrutiny.
In 1972, when a firm called Michael J. Howard Agencies Limited went out of business leaving about £50,000 owing, it was a firm called Seven Seas which stepped into the breach. Just before Seven Seas collapsed, it was another company, Expediting and Transit, involving Mr. Howard, which, in turn, reciprocated by stepping into the breach. So these relationships between companies getting into trouble merit a closer look by Government Departments or other agencies, such as the police.
It is traumatic enough for people to move themselves to a new land. It is even more traumatic if their belongings stay 12,000 miles behind them. We should not neglect these people because they have left our shores. We have a moral and, to my mind, a legal obligation to ensure that they get justice.
I am not pursuing companies which go bust, though, regrettably, far too many do. But I think that an exception can be made in the cases which I have mentioned.
This is an easy industry to break into. Most of the 1,500 or so operating are reputable. It is only a dozen or so that I would question in terms of their experience, financial viability, credibility and integrity. All that is needed is a telephone and a grandiose, all-embracing title on some headed notepaper, such as "Transworld Removals". I very much hope that there is no firm of that name. It needs very little capital, and no transport is necessary. There is no validation procedure, and anyone applying to join an organisation such as the Association of Removers finds that it is a purely voluntary process. Thankfully, it has had

the good sense to turn down a number of companies that applied to join it which have subsequently gone into liquidation.
Nevertheless, it is easy for these companies to set up in business. Some of them, with small overheads and minimal financial backing, can take on the larger and more established companies and undercut them substantially. Many companies which have been established in this line of business have left it because they have been very much undercut, and this has been to the detriment and not to the advantage of the travelling public.
In taking money in advance, some of these companies give a synthetic impression of viability. But, as the liquidator said in one case, the company was "hopelessly insolvent". Many of these companies are involved in the cash flow game, which is detrimental to consumer interests.
The heartache caused by their collapse is considerable. I know of families who have been forced to return from New Zealand because they could not get their goods out of this country. In many cases, there is real hardship.
What can be done? Since I first raised the issue last summer, I have become very much aware that progress has been made. I thank the Minister for his interest in the subject, and I want publicly to compliment the work of the West Midlands County Council's consumer protection department.
There are lessons to be learned to diminish the likelihood of a repetition of the distressing circumstances experienced by the victims of these defaulting companies. As the industry becomes more and more international, and as some unscrupulous, excessively ambitious, often incompetent or potentially dishonest individuals see the pickings to be made in the industry, there can be more trouble ahead for prospective migrants.
The industry itself must help to put its own house in order. If a person goes to a professional association such as the BAR, there is no guarantee that the company will transport his goods to Australia or New Zealand, but the chances are immeasurably improved. This rather conservative industry has to put its own house in order and has made progress to this end. It has to devise


a tight code of practice. It is now discussing a bonding system, rather on the lines of the ABTA scheme, but there are differences. I believe that there must be some form of compensation scheme.
I received in my post yesterday a copy of a guarantee issued by Pickfords, one of our obviously reputable companies. That guarantee offers hope for the future if others follow suit. I know that two companies have embarked on payment after goods have arrived. The industry itself must learn the lessons of these collapses and adjust its practices to allay public fears and protect its reputation.
In another issue on the licensing of private security firms I am calling for a public licensing authority. This would be rather grandiose in the case of the removal industry. I believe, however, that there should be some form of licensing. The BAR maintains that the powers are already with the Department of Transport under the Transport Act 1968. The Department, however, denies that this provision can be used for such purposes. I believe that it offers a prospect of some form of licensing and validation through the operators' licensing system. I was interested to see that the Department of Transport did not take too kindly to the use of EEC regulations being discussed as a means of regulating the industry.
Perhaps I can refer to the Department of the Environment's consultative document on the transport managers' licence It says that the EEC directive on admission to the occupation of road haulage operator offers a way of licensing because Part V of the 1968 Act contains a provision for a transport managers' licensing scheme, and this will be used as the legislative basis for implementation. The directive requires road hauliers to be of good repute, of appropriate financial standing and professionally competent. I hope, therefore, that the Department will look at this document to see whether this can form the basis of some form of licensing system. On page 3 the document states
The Directive requires that an operator shall be of good repute, of appropriate financial standing and professionally competent. An operator who is not professionally competent may designate another person who is, provided he is of good repute, and that he

continuously and effectively manages the transport operations of the business. Similarly, an undertaking must nominate a person who satisfies these requirements. Other persons in the undertaking may also be required to show good repute".
We hope that the Department will accept that and thus provide some form of validation. Ultimately, however, the responsibility must lie with the customer. I hope that those who decide to go abroad will not be beguiled by glossy advertising, slick sales techniques and, above all, by what looks like the lowest quote. Many people in New Zealand and Australia regret that they did not heed this advice.
My advice, therefore, is that people should shop around, seek sound advice and make sure that the company is financially sound. The chances of people's goods arriving are greatly increased if they go to the company belonging to a reputable association such as the BAR.
The High Commissions have tightened up on the advice that they have been giving. They cannot name names and direct people to or away from companies. But they are endeavouring to advise applicants to use reputable contractors and to warn them of potential pitfalls. That is positive guidance that I welcome.
I am pleased that the migrant Press such as Australian Outlook is sharpening up its procedures for vetting advertisers, although it costs money to refuse advertisements. The editor of Australian Outlook devoted a great deal of space to this subject and issued an editorial warning people of the dangers of these peripheral companies. He wrote to me explaining that the paper went to a great deal of trouble to vet companies which were asking to advertise with it, but he added this was not foolproof. At least the paper is seeking to vet applicants. I wish that "Yellow Pages" could do the same. "Yellow Pages" is the major source for pulling in the gullible who go for the slick advertising and are caught.
Is the Minister prepared to get the BAR to discuss greater protection for the consumer and perhaps the possibility of an officially recognised self-regulating scheme? Is the Minister contemplating changes in the law on advertising? Is he satisfied that recent legislation such as the Insolvency Act and the Companies


Act give proper protection to the consumer, and will he discuss with the Department of Transport the possibility of using EEC regulations as a basis for some form of validation?
If we could do all these things perhaps the disasters which have befallen a relatively small but significant minority will not have been in vain. Perhaps then those who are contemplating moving—perhaps in the EEC—will be afforded the measure of protection that they have so far been denied.

5.30 a.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. John Fraser): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for raising this matter. The Government appreciate the scale of the problem, and we have been very much concerned about the anxiety and financial problems that have arisen.
About 700 emigrants were affected by the collapse of QRS and Seven Seas. They had losses of about £400,000. It is bad enough to wait through the night for an Adjournment debate, but imagine the plight of somebody who waits on the other side of the world for his home and personal effects. If they do not arrive the family has to pay in some cases not once again but twice for their delivery.
I am very glad that already my hon. Friend's initiative has resulted in some publicity about the matter. I hope that the debate will be widely reported, because it is necessary to warn potential emigrants of the need to be careful about their choice of a shipper.
I should like to say something about what I have done. Potential emigrants will be in touch with Commonwealth High Commissions at some stage, so the Commissions are an important source of sound advice. I wrote to the Commissioners of Australia, Canada and New Zealand suggesting that they advise potential emigrants to choose a firm that is not only reputable, preferably belonging to the British Association of Removers, but long-established and unlikely to have liquidity problems. I have had encouraging replies from the three Commissioners. The Commissions now remind potential emigrants of recent liquidations and give them suitable advice

about the choice of a reputable and reliable shipper.
I suppose that other advice that can be given follows the advice given by the Commissions. Potential emigrants should have no difficulty in ensuring a move that is financially trouble-free if they deal with reputable firms. For example, if they deal with Pickfords—and I give this only as an example—although they are required to pay for the move in advance, such payment is covered by Pickford's financial guarantee scheme, in effect a bonding scheme, underwritten by an insurance company. This provides that if Pickfords becomes insolvent a customer's money is refunded to him plus an additional sum to cover any subsequent increase in overseas removal rates. This seems to me an admirable arrangement, and I hope that it spreads. I think that it is the sort of scheme my hon. Friend has in mind for the whole industry.
Emigrants to New Zealand and Australia using the services of another firm, a member of the P  0 Group, do not have to pay the costs of the sea leg of the move until their goods arrive in the country of destination. That is also helpful. I understand that at least one other firm offers that facility.
Thirdly, one can advise emigrants to deal with members of the British Association of Removers. I would advise them to deal with one of the reputable companies I have already mentioned or BAR members, who, to their credit, refused membership to both QRS and Seven Seas.
BAR can protect its customers in a number of ways. It is discussing schemes now, including indemnity cover in the form of bonds, escrow accounts and minimum financial resources. It has come across many technical problems, and these would not disappear in a statutory scheme of one sort or another. I accept that the cost of any protection scheme introduced by the Association would have to be passed on to customers, and that this may make its members less competitive with the pirates, who already have the advantage of being able to undercut normal rates because they are working with virtually no capital. Incidentally, I am not sure that "pirates" is the right word, because at least pirates get to sea, and some of these companies have not been able even to do that. Emigrants who have had to pay twice to ship their goods would


doubtless now agree that offers made by QRS and Seven Seas have turned out not to be cheap at all. The Association's members could make capital out of that. There is no reason why a protection scheme should not work to the members' advantage as much as to their customers' advantage.
I should like now to say something about action in hand or in contemplation in relation to at least those two companies that my hon. Friend mentioned.
First, I turn to offences under the Trade Descriptions Act 1968. That Act makes it an offence, among other things, for any person in the course of business knowingly or recklessly to make a false statement about the nature of any services provided. I understand that both West Midlands County Council and Hampshire County Council, which have a high reputation for consumer protection, are considering whether there is evidence of offences under the 1968 Act.
Secondly, I understand that the police in both the West Midlands and Southampton are making certain inquiries into the affairs of QRS and Seven Seas.
Thirdly, the liquidators of QRS and Seven Seas have a duty under the Companies Acts 1948 and 1967, to investigate -the companies' affairs, and, if their inquiries reveal any facts which could lead to criminal charges, to report them to the appropriate authorities.
The Department of Trade is seeking further information regarding three companies—QRS, Seven Seas and Ocean-mount Ltd. I shall give some thought to whether anything can be done about the goods which are now abandoned or holed up in their warehouses.
Fourthly, the Director General of Fair Trading is actively considering whether he has any evidence of the directors concerned having carried on a course of conduct detrimental to the interests of consumers in the United Kingdom. The Director can ask an offending trader to mend his ways. If he cannot get an assurance to this effect from the trader, he can bring proceedings in the courts. The courts can seek similar undertakings or, if necessary, make an order compelling the trader to refrain from a particular course of conduct. A breach of a court order is punishable as contempt of court.
There is also action which can in due course be taken under the Insolvency Act 1976. My hon. Friend asked whether I was satisfied with the working of that Act. I cannot answer that question, because the Act is not yet in force. When it is in force it will provide that in certain circumstances the court may order an individual to be disqualified from taking part in the management of a company for a specific period if he has been a director of two or more insolvent companies which have been wound up and his conduct makes him unfit to be concerned in the management of a company.

Mr. George: All I am saying is that he gets two bites at the cherry. He can go bust and then go bust again before the law catches up with him whether the Act is in force or not.

Mr. Fraser: I do not want to take up too much time debating that matter tonight. Under the Companies Acts there is provision for disqualifying a person acting as a director if he has been guilty of fraud or mismanagement. The Insolvency Act carries that principle a little further, but it is too early to make a judgment about it.
Turning to "Yellow Pages" advertising, because of the high number of advertisements the Post Office cannot accept responsibility for vetting the services offered by advertisers. It is not in a position to judge whether a firm is ill-equipped or unqualified to perform the service that it advertises in a one-line entry.
Under the Transport Act 1968—operators' licences—any question of the licensing of furniture removers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport. The EEC directive on road haulage operators applies only to vehicles of 6 tonnes gross and above. Regulations to be made by my right hon. Friend under the 1968 Act to put the provisions of the directive into force will apply to vehicles above 3½ tonnes gross. Most vehicles used by the so-called "pirate" removal companies are under 3½ tonnes gross. However, my right hon. Friend feels that there are insufficient grounds for varying the 3½ tonnes threshold for a particular type of business—for example, furniture removers.
My Department has put to the Department of Transport claims by the British Association of Removers that the EEC directive is being interpreted too narrowly. The Department of Transport says that the EEC directive is aimed at rather wider business competence than simply a capacity to operate vehicles safely. Before granting a standard operator's licence, the licensing authority will therefore ensure that, as far as possible, the applicant has sufficient resources properly to run a transport business of the scope indicated by the number and size of his vehicles. The Department feels that that is a long way from expecting a licensing authority to ensure commercial viability in trading. Bankruptcies and bad debts are not uncommon amongst hauliers of all kinds. The Department believes that in considering how to protect the public from the consequences of financial failure by removal firms the operator's licence is only marginally relevant.
I realise the extent of suffering that is caused when overseas removal companies become insolvent. I experienced the problem in my own constituency recently when emigrants were going to the West
1202-1208
Indies. I have done everything that I can to ensure that prospective emigrants receive advice on where it is best to go to have their effects shipped. The best solution would obviously be some form of licensing—I use that word loosely—control system, or legal sanctions against firms that take payment for overseas removals without a bond or other protection for the emigrant.
It is not easy to devise a scheme that will work, and I do not have a definite scheme in mind. However, I shall undertake to discuss with the British Association of Removers, reputable companies and my hon. Friend ways in which we can overcome this severe problem which affects several hundred people. I shall be prepared to look at any representations, and I hope that eventually we shall come across a scheme—it might be voluntary or involve legislation—that will remove the uncertainty and unfairness that so many people have tragically suffered when they have moved to the other side of the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Six o'clock a.m.